01-28-2017, 01:21 PM
As I have cited previously, "fake news" is as old as the American republic:
"The Real History of Fake News"
http://www.cjr.org/special_report/fake_news_history.php
Which is not to downplay--much less dismiss--the current import of "fake news" simply because the archives of American journalism are littered with all manner of misinformation, deception, and lies. Propaganda even.
Surely, much of what passes for "fake news" today seems petty and innocuous: the patently false report that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office, or Trump's wildly inflated estimate of the crowd size at his inauguration. In either case, the proverbial "tempest in a teapot."
But what happens when the stakes are higher? I'm not thinking of "fake news" that is a mere shading of the truth or a different interpretation of data to achieve partisan advantage. Rather, I mean "fake news" that impacts directly on making public policy or launching wars. American presidents have justified at least two long-running wars on the flimsiest of pretexts. A Congressional committee in the 1950s conducted a modern-day "witch hunt" based on the specious allegation that large numbers of Communists and/or sympathizers were working inside the federal government.
So why does it matter, then--fake news?
It was Mark Twain who once said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” If that pithy humor was true in Twain's time, think how much truer it is today. The sheer ubiquity and speed of social media ("Trending" on Facebook, for instance) can spread "fake news" on the Internet with a rapidity and reach that a town crier in the days of old could not have imagined. The potential impact of "fake news"--however disconnected it may be from any semblance of truth--is magnified many times over now.
That would not be so bad, in and of itself, if not for the continuing polarization of American society. There is an ideological rigidity on the Left and Right, such as I have never witnessed in my lifetime. Too many Americans are hunkered down in partisan bunkers, their unswayable political views affirmed--not informed--by a smorgasbord of cable news programs, magazines, newspapers and, above all, blogs. So when a newsflash hits the screen claiming that Trump has removed MLK's bust from the White House, many of his detractors are all too ready to see it as proof positive of his latent racism, all evidence to the contrary. Just this morning on ABC News, a soundbite was aired as to the unsubstantiated claim of Gregg Phillips (founder of VoteStand) that 3 million illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton, costing Trump the popular vote. Even though ABC cast Phillips as the conspiracy theorist that he is, they gave the "story" a measure of credence to the Trump faithful. So why report on it in the first place?
Which leads to my next point. We now have an administration that has taken on the press in an unprecedented fashion, exceeding even the contempt of Richard Nixon. Only yesterday, Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon proclaimed that "the media is the opposition party." (A rather embarrassing demotion for the Democratic Party, I would think.) Bannon further warned the media to "keep its mouth shut." Which is a very dangerous development for the Fourth Estate, whose most essential function in our democracy is to speak truth to power. If all it takes to stifle an investigative report into his administration, let's say, is for Trump or his advisors to shout "fake news!," then we may be in deep trouble. The press cannot allow itself to be cowed in such a manner.
Finally, as an article in Jacobin has recently pointed out, "Disputes over Trump’s election [and his inauguration] are just the latest episodes in the slow erosion of trust in the legitimacy of American institutions."
And that makes me wonder if we're not still unraveling...
"The Real History of Fake News"
http://www.cjr.org/special_report/fake_news_history.php
Which is not to downplay--much less dismiss--the current import of "fake news" simply because the archives of American journalism are littered with all manner of misinformation, deception, and lies. Propaganda even.
Surely, much of what passes for "fake news" today seems petty and innocuous: the patently false report that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office, or Trump's wildly inflated estimate of the crowd size at his inauguration. In either case, the proverbial "tempest in a teapot."
But what happens when the stakes are higher? I'm not thinking of "fake news" that is a mere shading of the truth or a different interpretation of data to achieve partisan advantage. Rather, I mean "fake news" that impacts directly on making public policy or launching wars. American presidents have justified at least two long-running wars on the flimsiest of pretexts. A Congressional committee in the 1950s conducted a modern-day "witch hunt" based on the specious allegation that large numbers of Communists and/or sympathizers were working inside the federal government.
So why does it matter, then--fake news?
It was Mark Twain who once said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” If that pithy humor was true in Twain's time, think how much truer it is today. The sheer ubiquity and speed of social media ("Trending" on Facebook, for instance) can spread "fake news" on the Internet with a rapidity and reach that a town crier in the days of old could not have imagined. The potential impact of "fake news"--however disconnected it may be from any semblance of truth--is magnified many times over now.
That would not be so bad, in and of itself, if not for the continuing polarization of American society. There is an ideological rigidity on the Left and Right, such as I have never witnessed in my lifetime. Too many Americans are hunkered down in partisan bunkers, their unswayable political views affirmed--not informed--by a smorgasbord of cable news programs, magazines, newspapers and, above all, blogs. So when a newsflash hits the screen claiming that Trump has removed MLK's bust from the White House, many of his detractors are all too ready to see it as proof positive of his latent racism, all evidence to the contrary. Just this morning on ABC News, a soundbite was aired as to the unsubstantiated claim of Gregg Phillips (founder of VoteStand) that 3 million illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton, costing Trump the popular vote. Even though ABC cast Phillips as the conspiracy theorist that he is, they gave the "story" a measure of credence to the Trump faithful. So why report on it in the first place?
Which leads to my next point. We now have an administration that has taken on the press in an unprecedented fashion, exceeding even the contempt of Richard Nixon. Only yesterday, Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon proclaimed that "the media is the opposition party." (A rather embarrassing demotion for the Democratic Party, I would think.) Bannon further warned the media to "keep its mouth shut." Which is a very dangerous development for the Fourth Estate, whose most essential function in our democracy is to speak truth to power. If all it takes to stifle an investigative report into his administration, let's say, is for Trump or his advisors to shout "fake news!," then we may be in deep trouble. The press cannot allow itself to be cowed in such a manner.
Finally, as an article in Jacobin has recently pointed out, "Disputes over Trump’s election [and his inauguration] are just the latest episodes in the slow erosion of trust in the legitimacy of American institutions."
And that makes me wonder if we're not still unraveling...