Dr. Frankenstein's Monster: 'Fake News?'
There has been a lot in the news about a thing called, "fake news" this year and I don’t believe that most people have any idea what they mean when they use the term. Most people are using the term as way to describe stories that make wild allegations that are anti their own understanding of a particular situation. We used to call this tabloid news, or gossip, or pick your terminology and people have allowed this type of “journalism” to enter their world and are not counting themselves responsible for vetting what they read/see/hear.
In 2014, I visited an exhibit of the contents of King Tut's tomb while in Kansas City at Union Station and was amazed at the wonderful and seemingly priceless treasures laid out before me. There was a problem there. They are not the originals, but are expert copies. The expertly crafted replicas hold a significant amount of value for themselves, but most definitely not priceless.
Are the items in the above images real, or fake? When viewing the exhibit, are the feelings of awe warranted since the items are not originals?
Any real news story’s creation begins at least with the basic questions, “Who, what, where, when, why, and how,” then expands upon them. These questions are the first step, but the lack thereof does not necessarily mean this is a fake news story. There are other questions you should consider while reading the story:
Does the story answer the questions: Who, what, where, when, why, and how?
Is there a sensational headline that is not delivered in the story? “Senator J. James Just Destroyed the President with One Phrase.” When all he said was that he disagreed with the president. This headline is only designed to generate clicks.
Are there unnamed sources in the article? “A staffer told me that…” Or, “It has been reported…,” but never says by whom?
Did the creator of the story copy/paste a significant amount of text from another article and place it in theirs with, or without citing the source? This is plagiarism and the blogger is just trying to get you to come to their site by claiming someone else’s work.
Does the article completely fit your beliefs, or as close to 100% as possible? It is okay to agree with an article to this degree, but if you only listen to people with whom you agree, you never learn anything.
Did the creator back up their claims in the story? Meaning, is there good solid evidence presented? Some anecdotal evidence is acceptable, because points of view are considered evidence, but should always be tested.
Can you easily search and find another story that corroborates the initial claims?
None of these questions represent a definitive answer to the conundrum of real versus fake news, but if you are asking these questions while reading, you will be more skeptical and therefore, more plugged-in to discovering the story’s validity, or not. The main point here is that if you are wanting to back your point up by using an article that has not fulfilled the requirements for a legitimate article, you are doing it wrong, or doing it half-way.
Journalism has taken a disappointing, but technologically organic turn in the way things are delivered. Gone are the days of clearly knowing when a story is from a reporter, columnist, or op-ed writer. The lines are blurred and the average person simply does not have time to run down the origin of an article to discern the validity of the information. This is not to say that just because something is a column, or an op-ed that the information contained within is not correct, but these two types of stories are not generally held to the same strict guidelines as a reported-event story. Increasingly the opinion of the writer is entering the straight news story because per the marketers, the public wants the flash of lights and the scream of sirens to feel engaged.
I remember when the anchor would physically turn to “Camera 2” at the end of a broadcast and deliver the dry to-the-point editorial. This was intended to say to us that everything up until this point was reported news and now the news outlet was delivering the collective opinion of the editorial board.
The advent of 24-hour news channels and bullet-point news began the slide to the current state in which we reside. The problem with this kind of news is the consumer only gets what is delivered in that 30-minute cycle and does not always consider that there may be more to the story. In the print media, front page bullet-point news gave the reader a snippet of news and only the avid readers would actually flip the page to page 4D to find the rest of the story. The teaser line, or "nutgraf" no longer makes people yearn to read more, or stick around until after the weather to get the information.
This blurring of the lines and the inundation of the same stories repeated on every network, while claiming to have delivered it first gave rise to the new class news deliverers. The quick response, or reflex story gives just enough information for the public to run with the story’s conclusion. They give news pieces with their opinions either in the story, or having influenced the pursuit of the story. These entities are feeding the consumers from a niche in the market that feel left out by what is termed, "the mainstream media.” A term that has an ambiguous definition, at best, yet everyone seems to think they know what is meant.
Perceptions of Opinions vs. News
A personality like Rush Limbaugh does not pretend to be delivering stories from a reported news point of view, he delivers what he sees, reads, and finds reported elsewhere and then, delivers his opinion on the subject. While Limbaugh does say that his listeners do not need to go anywhere else for the information, he knows his listeners will look it up themselves and he even expects this. None the less, he is biased in his opinion.
Limbaugh is a well-established player in the political discussion realm and many have come and gone from all sections of the political spectrum, however, he fits more with the “Camera 2” example above. He continues to remain relevant by keeping up with information trends, as evidenced by how many different presidents, gov’t officials, and legislators routinely quote and/or mock his opinions. In the current trend, it is the blogosphere and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) that are driving and reflecting events in the world. More specifically, the people. In August 2016, CNN Money did a story on his recent contract renewal: (http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/02/media/rush-limbaugh-renews-talk-radio-contract/)
In the social media realm, two friends can share a comment with one another and then, spread that potentially, around the world. In 2010, the "Arab Spring" was very much driven by social media and the standard media could only report as best they could what was happening, but they could not keep up and even got many things wrong in their rush. (Benghazi, et.al.)
In an attempt to help control/correct any misinformation in social media, more recent 21st Century Internet-based news outlets like The Blaze, The Huffington Post, and even Al Jazeera have risen with the intention of bringing news to the discussion and many times even break stories to the nation and even the world. This noble purpose notwithstanding, they still have their issues.
The Blaze was started by Glenn Beck, who is an opinion commentator on the same par with Limbaugh and therefore, this can cause people to look at The Blaze with a sideways gaze. Beck has stated on several occasions, on the Glenn Beck Show, that he is not directly involved with the editorial direction of the stories at The Blaze. Illustrated in that he is listed as a host on The Blaze's Facebook page, but people still assume a connection because of his views. Story on news checkers: (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/18/report-one-of-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-almost-exclusively-employs-liberals/)
As for The Huffington Post, (Huffpost, or Huffpo) and its founder/namesake, Arianna Huffington, she has ties to the cultural elite and her husband is a former congressperson and is a social activist, so the potential bias is there. In an Aug 11, 2016 story on HuffPost, the original reason for the entity is stated plainly, “…following the re-election of George W. Bush and as the war raged in Iraq. What began as a left-leaning answer to the Drudge Report.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/arianna-huffington-post_us_57ac67e6e4b0ba7ed23f2989) The Huffington Post was purchased by AOL in 2011**, but those who did not trust Huffpost then, have not really changed their minds.
Al Jazeera has other problems, which are more politically existential in nature. People believe the news outlet to be the propaganda arm of pick-a-terrorist-group from around the world, so even if they delivered 80% true and non-biased stories, the mountain they must climb to reach a reputable status is Everest in size. Even though their stated code of ethics includes: Adhering to the journalistic values, endeavoring to get to the truth, presenting the diverse points of view, acknowledging a mistake when it occurs, and more common rules held by many, they cannot overcome the stigma. (http://www.aljazeera.com/aboutus/2006/11/2008525185733692771.html)
I picked these four because together they seem to be a good example of the foggy area that the new news wanders within and there is a noted difference between the method, or bias from each outlet. However, I do not fault any of them in their pursuit, because they know that "the old grey lady” news style is dying and the news cycle happens more quickly than any of the multi-division outlets can deliver.
Citizen Journalists
The smart phone world does not allow for a traditional full-day’s vetting, or beginning to research a story on Tuesday and developing it through the week just so it is delivered with the Sunday comics and crossword and situated between the Macy’s and Lexus ads. Press credentials are not required to be a reporter anymore because anyone with a smart phone can record what is going on and post it. News outlets make an attempt at grabbing the story by requesting people to send in the video. They do give credit for the video, but people do not share the video from the news outlet, they share from a friend, from a friend, from a friend, etc. thus, rendering the traditional media secondary news source at best.
Since the people are the new reporters, the people will also have to be the truth detectors when viewing the content. The problem is that if we engage on social media, the conversation quickly degrades to a flurry of arguments between people and then, virtual as well as real friendships are destroyed. This new method of news delivery requires us to be more informed and more plugged-in and more inclined to spend less of our time with family, or just plain experiencing life.
We have created this social media monster, but want to pretend that it just emerged from the mist. Victor Frankenstein had to eventually face the reality of his creation and take responsibility for him. The monster was not fake as a whole, but only a creation pieced together through ambition and was an attempt to control the things that cannot be controlled, therefore, one person’s opinion of what constitutes life. The result was a monster that was essentially a fake human.
The old-school media and their grip on what will be considered news created the circumstances that inspired the people to begin looking for alternatives. The new news media is driven by the pursuit of social media trends, which, is a clear and noble democratic pursuit. Somewhere in the mix of all the tools and outlets available, we all created this monster and now, live our lives trying to control it, but it cannot be controlled. We can only carefully consider what we see, hear, and read by our own due diligence because the monster is out of the lab and each piece of the “Frankenstein” has its own origin.
The pieces of social news all come together to form this monster that exists in the digital world called the Internet where they bound and rebound leaving the truth stranded and isolated, but not lost. It is there waiting to be discovered. Don’t be drawn into the misinformation discussions. Your soul, your psyche is the only thing that is under your control and the only thing that can understand and carry truth. You cannot change another’s mind, you can only tell them what you see, or understand, but my point is that you need to be clear in your position and understanding. There will be those who disagree with you, but if you are actively pursuing truth, you can learn from and grow by any criticism.
The old news media will not be able to regain control over what they once had, but the anarchy-like state of current news reporting is not where we want to be either. The monster does need to be fed, so if we use our collective intelligence and action, we can amputate the pieces that do not contain truth. If the piece is viable to any degree, it will survive, but if not, it will die.
Yes, you should run through all the questions I mentioned above on this story, as well.
**Huffpost-AOL: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07aol.html
