Given the fundamental freedoms granted to us as Americans, there is no doubt that misleading, distorted, and downright false news is allowed to frequently pollute our social media feeds, accessible among thousands of pages within our search results every day.
The debate surrounding Fake news has recently blown up, with President Obama himself weighing in referring to the phony, but enticingly-packaged stories as a ‘threat to democracy.’
This conversation later spilled into international waters, prompting one Chinese reporter in particular to join, and they may have a point - as outlined by their editorial piece in the state-run Global Times.
"Media platforms have the right to publish any information in the political field and cracking down on online rumors would confine freedom of speech. Isn't this what the West advocates when it is at odds with emerging countries over Internet management? Why don't they uphold those propositions anymore?"
While the argument is digestible – we understand that, whether a threat to democracy or not, the spread of Fake news online is a private-sector problem that can only evoke private-sector solutions as it stands in the US. Take Google’s recent initiative to pull Adsense support from fraudulent news sites, or Facebook’s follow-up to enact similar policies among their own ad networks, for example.
But -- how about solutions that put power in the hand of the American consumer? Maybe Facebook is simply unfit to be someone’s primary source of news. I mean, who could we consider a social media post to be a reliable source? Could we be trusted to reject our favorite social media platforms, as sources of news, legitimate or illegitimate?
Where the Global times reporter gets it right, is their noticeable disdain for fake news as a threat to public opinion, and the swaying of major political decisions. The solutions are debatable. Very few people in the US, especially under president Obama, would likely stand for state-censorship of speech on the internet – even if it is false.
But I’d argue, as our president has acknowledged, that the spread of Fake news does not only stem from unpredictable Facebook posts or articles on obscure news sites. Online journalism - from a staged YouTube video, to a well-researched article in a reputable publication – is, in essence, a reinterpretation of how stories are told in traditional media – on TV, and in newspapers.
Over time, online journalism developed its own flair, especially in video, but the goal for many of these publications remains the same: to sell a story. Clickbait, Listicles, flashy thumbnails, you name it; media sensationalism was adopted from traditional media, it stems from the manufactured and blatantly enthusiastic controversy that we still see in Television news rooms today, and this practice extends to someone’s fake social media news story.
If we should censor fake news on the internet, then we ought to take a look at how our traditional media operates too. Sensationalist news is borderline fake news, blatantly dishonest media certainly didn’t originate on Facebook – nor does it necessarily need Facebook to continue thriving today.
