There’s a name for sensational information and opinion sources posing as news: we call them “fake news.” A writer who identifies as Seminole Democrat offers this definition of the term: “’Fake News’ is a very real thing. It is the publication of hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news with the deliberate intent to mislead. Many fake news websites originate from Russia, Macedonia, and Romania” (“Media Bites Back,” The Daily Sentinel).
Anyone who has been marginally conscious during the last month knows one thing above all else about our new “president”: He HATES the media. His hatred extends to any news source, any reporter, and any writing which does not feed his gargantuan ego. He was so discouraged after his first four weeks in office that he felt it necessary to throw himself a great big love fest in Florida, attended by about 9000 enthusiastic rally goers who gave his spirits just the lift they needed.
Having a name for a phenomenon which is clearly a problem is good; readers need to distinguish between what is factual news and what is propaganda, and labels help us sort things out. However, Trump’s media war and his irresponsible attacks on the free press have rendered the term meaningless and left us once again without clear guidelines on what to believe and what to reject in the flood of information we encounter each day. Trump latched onto the term “fake news” like it was a stack of $100 bills and turned it into a convenient slur for any reports that cast him in an unfavorable light, of which there have been plenty.
To be fair, probably everyone reading this article has at some time criticized the media and blamed them for all that is wrong in the world. It’s a national pastime. I’ve done it. So why is it an emergency when the “president” does the same thing? Well, because he’s not really doing the same thing. Most of us have a limited audience for our rantings: a dinner party perhaps, an action group, blog readers, social media friends, students. But when the president speaks, the whole world is listening; and his words shape thoughts, opinions, attitudes, policies, and alliances or conflicts. Our nation’s chief executive is expected to speak publicly with intelligence, judgment, and diplomacy. That’s what we mean when we talk about being presidential, and those who are still expecting this “president” to pivot to presidential behavior are at best naïve.
Much as we may occasionally disdain the media, we live with the fact that without a free press there can be no democracy. What’s the old saying? Can’t live with them, can’t live without them. The press is sometimes referred to as the Fourth Estate. Thomas Carlyle, in his book On Heroes and Hero Worship, attributes the origin of the term to Edmund Burke: “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.” The three estates of Parliament to which Burke refers were the Lords Spiritual (the clergy), the Lords Temporal (the nobility), and the Commons (the commoners).
Visualize that image: Three estates were joined in the governing body, each with a voice in the political process. Removed from that triad was the fourth estate: observing, reporting, but without a direct voice in the political process. They were politically independent and were expected to speak the truth to their readers; so while the other three estates’ purview was politics, the purview of the fourth estate was truth. The fourth estate was said to be “more important far than they all” because they act as the liaison between the government and the governed. Though they have no voice in government, their voice to the governed is invaluable.
Their presence acts as another check on the governing body, providing incentive to behave ethically or face the consequence of having their transgressions made known to the public. That’s not an enviable assignment. It takes courage and conviction to report honestly and hold people accountable, knowing that one’s honesty is not going to be appreciated by those being reported on. Nonetheless, a free and independent press is at the core of any democracy.
Governments that want to shun accountability and transparency and to conduct their operations in secret make the press their first target. Of all the appalling things Trump has done during his campaign and during the first five weeks of his “presidency,” his war on the media is the most significant. He has, in the minds of his followers, so delegitimized the press that the followers will accept his lies as truth and reject the press’s truth as lies. This is a very dangerous situation, and few members of our current congress are going to do anything about it. It’s up to each of us to be informed, to be willing to call a lie a lie every time we hear one, and to stand in solidarity with the honest journalists who devote their lives to bringing us the truth.
To begin, we have to sharpen our critical thinking skills. There really is fake news, and there really is honest journalism. Believing everything one reads and rejecting everything one reads are equally naïve, lazy, and dangerous; knowing what to believe and what to reject is not for the mentally slothful. Let’s look at a completely non-political example to illustrate the differences.
Imagine that you’re 12 years old, and your parents have left you in your grandparents’ care for the day. Your grandparents instruct you at the beginning of the day that you may play unattended, but you must stay close to the house so that they can know where you are at all times. You agree and head outside. After a while, you meet some of the neighborhood kids who join you in your activities; and soon they invite you to go with them to hang out at their house and swim in their pool. That sounds like fun, so you go. An hour later, when you return, your grandparents are upset because they have been unable to find you and have been worried. Because of the safety factor (they don’t know the people whose house you visited) and the trust issue (you didn’t do what you agreed to do), they decide your parents should be informed.
Scenario One: Fake News
You really didn’t do any of this; but your grandparents are still a little miffed at you over something you did the last time you visited, so they fabricate a story for the sole purpose of getting you into trouble with your parents. Or perhaps your grandma went out to check on you, couldn’t see you for a few minutes because you were riding around the block on your bike, freaked out, and then exaggerated and embellished the story to teach you a lesson.
Scenario Two: Biased News
Your grandparents relate the facts exactly as they happened but focus on the fact that the people you visited are a different ethnicity or religion than your family is. They don’t lie, but they seem more concerned about the ethnic or religious difference than they do about the relevant factors of safety and trust.
Scenario Three: Objective Journalism
Your grandparents relate only the facts, leaving your parents to make their own decision about the gravity of the offense and what if any consequences you should incur.
Obviously the first scenario should never happen. It’s mean, unethical, and destructive. Just as obviously, the third scenario is the ideal; however, we all know that kind of reporting is probably the least common these days. The second scenario seems to be the most common. The important distinction, though, is that neither the second nor the third scenario is fake news. Both types report the facts, and a critical reader or listener can usually detect the bias and disregard it. Because fake news is either pure fiction or fiction built around a kernel of truth, and because one of the disturbing realities of our time is the low regard for fact and the high regard for anything that reinforces our previously held opinions, and because propaganda is composed with the intent to deceive, fake news is not so easily detected or rejected.
Although biased news sources attempt to influence readers toward a particular slant on the truth, fake news sources disregard truth altogether. They are operated for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation and propaganda—sometimes favoring the right, sometimes the left. They are characterized by sensational, misleading, and often downright dishonest headlines. The writers make no pretense of having vetted their information, and their readers do not require adherence to journalistic standards of investigation, use of primary sources, and vetting of sources and evidence. These sites exist only to reinforce the prejudices of their readers; and again, some are left and some are right.
CNN is not fake news; and even though I prefer CNN over Fox, I will say that Fox is not fake news. CNN leans a little left, and Fox leans a lot right, but both employ legitimate journalists who report documented information from different points of view. And calling the New York Times, one of our country’s most respected newspapers since 1851, “fake news” is just absurd! I would add that not all of those who host shows on Fox are “legitimate journalists”; but they offer opinions and would, in think, be most accurately categorized as talk shows. Talk shows are not fake news; they are sources of opinion, discussion, and entertainment and should be recognized as such.
So when DJT cries “fake news,” is the news really fake, or can the thin-skinned orange guy just not handle the truth? Well, you know what I think; and if you’ve read this far, you probably agree. Let’s all scream it together: “You can’t handle the truth, Donald!”
Here is CNN’s Don Lemon explaining to a Trump surrogate the definition of fake news:
Trump’s only defense is revenge; when you don’t have intellect, class, or integrity, all you can do is hit back at any perceived opponent. Our (yours and my) best defense, however, is knowledge. Here’s a good link recommended by one of my librarian friends on how to know the difference between fake news and objective or biased journalism: http://blogs.ifla.org/…/01/How-to-Spot-Fake-News-1.jpg
Meanwhile, Trump’s war against the media will go on. In his most shocking and egregious battle so far in that war, his administration barred news organizations from attending a White House briefing session conducted by press secretary Sean Spicer on Friday, February 24. Journalists from The New York Times, CNN, the LA Times, and Politico were told that they could not enter the briefing room because they were “not on the list.” Breitbart News was, of course, among the select groups granted admission. The New York Times’ executive editor said, “Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties.”
Never happened before. That makes this decision an historic moment. Dan Rather calls it an emergency:
The time for normalizing, dissembling, and explaining away Donald Trump has long since passed. The barring of respected journalistic outlets from the White House briefing is so far beyond the norms and traditions that have governed this republic for generations, that they must be seen as a real and present threat to our democracy. These are the dangers presidents are supposed to protect against, not create.
For all who excused Mr. Trump’s rhetoric in the campaign as just talk, the reckoning has come. . . . What are you going to do about it? Do you maintain that an Administration that seeks to subvert the protections of our Constitution is fit to rule unchecked? Or fit to rule at all?
This is an emergency that can no longer be placed solely at the feet of President Trump, or even the Trump Administration. This is a moment of judgment for everyone who willingly remains silent. It is gut check time, for those in a position of power, and for the nation.
Jen Psaki, who held various positions related to communications during the Obama administration, sums it up well:
The Trump administration wants to continue to delegitimize institutions like the mainstream media. The more they can confuse the lines between facts and truth, legitimate and illegitimate sources of information, the more they will be able to brainwash the small segment of the public they care about reaching.
Because the way an administration interacts with the free press in the United States, through briefings and access to reporters — even those who have reported unflattering, harsh and sometimes unfair stories — sends a message to the rest of the world about how much we value the freedom of the press.
Knowledge is power. Is it fake, is it factual but biased, or is it factual and objective? Know before you share. Our lives depend on it.