Although the cry of “fake news” is a relatively recent phenomenon, the practice of disseminating news that is not true has been around for a long time. False stories and rumors have been commonplace in politics, business, and everyday personal relations for a good deal longer than I can remember. Foreign governments and political agitators of every stripe engage in what communists used to call “agitprop” in order to disrupt governments and societies. However, there should be some reasonable criteria for determining whether or not news is “fake.”
The guidelines for those who would report news have always been pretty clear. What happened? Where did it happen? When did it happen? Who was involved? Why did it happen? If the answers to any of these questions is contrary to fact, then a story is, at least, partially false. A story with one or more false elements is not necessarily “fake news.” It may be a mistake. Good journalists are trained to admit their mistakes and to publish or broadcast corrections. Fake news is “news” that is deliberately created out of whole cloth. It is published with the knowledge that one or all of the “W’s” is incorrect. Fake news is not just news that does not fit into our current world view. If the “W’s” are all correct, then we must deal with it no matter how unpleasant it may be.
The last of the “W’s” is always the most difficult. If it involves a discernible fact, e.g., the brakes failed on the truck, there is no problem. But when human motivation is part of the answer to the “Why?” question, things get difficult. All of us have a tendency to attribute evil motives to those whom we dislike or distrust. We cannot accept the fact that those whom we find distasteful might, on occasion act according to good motives. Neither can we accept that our friends and heroes may, occasionally act with bad motives.
The conspiracy theorist always has an answer to this. The reason that you cannot verify the five “W’s” listed above is that “they” are continuing to hide the real facts from you. One current movement is said to derive from an unidentified source within the government who is seeking to counter the machinations of the “deep state.” Of course we just have to take the statements of such groups at face value. “They” would enact horrible punishment on the true patriots behind the movement. If you are a journalist, intelligence officer, or law enforcement official who questions such assertions, you are, obviously, one of “them.”
Very little of the current reporting by the traditional mass media would fall into the “fake news” category. We can see and hear current events happening in real-time. The sense of what, when, where, and who is usually not in doubt. When we receive “news” from non-traditional sources, we have many electronic resources that will enable us to check it for accuracy. Of course, if it fits with our preconceptions, we tend not to do that.
A major problem that I see as addressed too little, is the fact that much of what is broadcast and printed in the mass media is not news at all. In order to fill the time and space, the media resort to telling us what others think that the news means. Whether it is Shields and Brooks on the News Hour or Fox and Friends, it is opinion and not news. I love to read disgruntled conservative columnists, but I know that I am not reading news. There is nothing “fake” about the opinions that are expressed. In this sense, one might reasonably charge the media with hubris. It is a particular problem when these commentators and columnists are either grappling with the answer to the “Why?” question or attempting to tell us what current events mean for the future.
There is one media practice that does hinder the communication of news events. The result is not news that is “fake”, but news that is miscommunicated. This practice is the introduction of false excitement and hyperbole. Those of us who are old enough to remember Cronkite, Mudd, Huntley, and Brinkley can recall news that was delivered in a serious, straightforward manner. Today broadcaster must display excitement and/or concern. What is more, in both broadcast and print media, the use of unnecessary adjectives and adverbs introduces both false excitement and value judgements. The use of such words as “iconic”, “amazing”, “unbelievable”, “heroic”, “terrifying”, etc. not only are attempts to excite passions about the story, but also tend to diminish the traditional meaning of the words. I have frequently observed that the acts of all true heroes are diminished when entire classes (i.e., all veterans) are labeled as heroes. What are those of the orthodox faiths to think when every entertainer, athlete, or petty politician is labelled an “icon?” If something is not to be believed, why should I waste my time reading or listening about it. If it is unbelievable, maybe it is “fake news.” Deleting unnecessary adjectives and adverbs from the news would provide more time and space for real reporting. It brings to mind a quotation from the old TV show, Dragnet. “Just the facts, Ma’am.” Let us keep the opinion to the editorial pages (or, perhaps, the comics). If they give me the facts, I will tell them whether or not I believe them, whether or not I am amazed, and whether or not I held the subject of the story in particular reverence. I don’t need help, and neither do you.