The last few months, since the shocking (to some) result of the election, traditional news media has been blaring about 'fake news'. I'm really not sure what fake news is. CBS News says each morning, in their intro and promotions, that they are 'real news' (though I've seen quite a bit that I'd call fake on their network). I've had people try and explain what it is to me, and there are examples of stuff that is clearly fake, but applying a definition to what it is? Unavailable. You pretty much know it when you see it, like porn.
So who gets to make the decision about what is truly 'fake news'? I know it when I see it, and every individual should have that right to decide. As I tell my friends, I apply Occam's Razor to everything I see and read. If it doesn't look or smell right, then it's probably fake and more digging needs to be done. Few people take the time or effort, anymore. So our government wants to do it for us. The politicians, at least, want to promote the concept that someone should be doing it for us. So guess what? They are. It's my view that Google's announcement last week to use algorithms to flesh out 'fake news' is going to be their Waterloo. Algorithms can't tell people what to read, what to believe, and can't discern truth from falsehood. All algorithms can do is push an agenda from those controlling the algorithm. So we'll be spoon fed pablum as real news seekers are cast aside as non-traditional sources or 'extremist' or having some other epithet applied to lower their score on the algorithm.
We may not have a Ministry of Truth, but lots of countries are trying to. If progress and opportunity slow and die in the coming years, the 'fake news' reaction will be why. After all, one clear case of how this is a problem is Man-Made ManBearPig Global Warming/Climate Change. Any site posting legitimate data and information which rebuts the Global Warming/Climate Change agenda will undoubtedly be labelled 'fake news'. From this point forward, any other opinion deemed 'incorrect' will fail the test and we can see where this algorithm will deprive people of good information.
When I was growing up, and learning to think for myself (a skill underutilized by politicians, and less so by millenials), I was taught methods to sniff out 'fake news'. It's nothing new, after all. Thomas Jefferson used it to devastating effect. Orson Welles used it for entertainment purposes, and created a whole line of subject matter for journalists to consider while engaging their craft. A war was justified on the basis of fake news generated by the entity which now is concerned about it - government and politicians. Have we forgotten the Gulf of Tonkin? Hillary Clinton, herself, is now spreading fake news about what she perceived was fake news. In other words, the worst offenders are the people who are telling us it's a problem. Politicians. So why are private firms taking steps, and what has caused this furor over something we've dealt with for years? As I've pointed out, fake news is not new, and it's always been pervasive. Urban myths and legends are no more plentiful today than when I was a kid learning about spiders in beehive hairdos.
What's driving it is the ire of the Left over Hillary's loss. Hillary's supporters look at the mainstream media, and realize it failed her. Why did it fail her? My guess is, as traditional sources of news have matured, and become more focused on increasing their earnings, they've sought new ways to make a buck. That means cost-cutting, and usually in areas where 'real news' gets done. Fact-checking, providing balanced viewpoints, investigative reporting (real investigative reporting, not determining how Beyonce chose her dress for the Oscars, or reporters digging for dirt on politicians they hate, rather than investigating viable topics worthy of discussion or debate). Traditional news media has come to rely on four sources of 'news',and isn't interested in real investigative reporting. After all, a good investigative journalist would've realized Hillary should be in jail because her email server. Careful wording by Comey saved her. So what passes for 'real news' these days?
Press releases dominate, for one, and Hillary realized this. A politician or company issues a press release, and the news will pick it up and run with it as 'news'. This is standard procedure now. Press releases are used in advertising to a very large degree. If done properly, you get tons of free press. It works equally well for politicians, if an event is staged well enough.
Another source is comedy. After all, who better to tell us how to think and act than a comedian with his own show? These people live everyday lives and have the same trials and tribulations as farmers, blue collar workers and even people like me, the ordinary office schlub. I love having John Oliver tell me my outlook on life is wrong because he's so much smarter than me. Stephen Colbert's faux-conservatism really is so informed and hilarious (it would serve him right if his homophobia costs him his job). Trevor Noah's South African roots give him so much more insight into...well, everything. Nevermind the ignorance they exhibit in their attempts to draw laughter, because it's about the story they tell to get the laughs. Getting a laugh is news.
Another source is opinion. Maggie's is, by and large, an opinion and information site. We're not a news site, and we don't pretend to be. News plays a big role in what we do, and how we craft our opinions, but we're not presenting everything as news. No news outlet can do this, in reality. It's almost impossible to remove opinion from news. However, a true news provider can present balanced viewpoints. Almost none do, now. News, today, is less about telling you that the Department of Education needs some kind of reform and outlining potential methods or providing background on why this is the case. Today, news is telling you that Betsy DeVos is evil, that reforming or cutting back the Department of Education is wrong, and that we should be spending more on that department in order to fix a problem which has already been determined to not be related to money. Opinion has gotten so bad, bias has even infiltrated sports news reporting.
A final source is user generated content. The disastrous PR for United Airlines removing David Dao is the most recent example. However, on the news this morning I saw an iPhone video of a small plane crashing (nobody was hurt, thankfully). Every day, the local news outlet spends five minutes showing the 'top viral videos', most of which are fluff pieces and not really news at all (is this fake news?). It was clear to me, as far back as 2007, when Cory Lidle's plane crashed into an apartment building in NYC, and the video was all provided by cell phone video, that news was changing forever. I hoped this would be a positive thing - being able to generate more points of view and opportunity to witness and experience events. It has, instead, turned into a social event for traditional news providers. Fluff sells as well as sensationalism. Cheap and cheerful. That's what one of my professors used to tell us was a recipe for success in media.
Traditional news sources (CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, ABC) have all become sources of fake news. Even The Economist, which I once held in high regard, has slipped badly. It is for this reason, I believe algorithms, and the Google approach to 'fixing' a problem which does not exist in any meaningful way, will fail and people will revolt. The assumption is "trusted news sources" provide more value than...the Drudge Report or Wikileaks (both of which do more good investigative reporting than any other news source).
I noticed changes in the Google and Facebook feeds during the election. Friends at both organizations said I was imagining things, because no changes were made to algorithms. I can't believe this. The shift was obvious. The plethora of pro-Hillary and anti-Trump 'news' was overwhelming. I didn't vote for either, and algorithms are supposed to account for your personal behavior. I noticed there was no accounting for my preferences, but rather an agenda being pushed.
The truth is be wary, and be skeptical. While friends tend to scoff at my skepticism, it's served me very well. I'm not always correct, but nobody is. Skepticism has kept me from falling into a trap of frequently sharing false news stories. I've avoided being sucked in by agenda-setting. Too many of my friends fall for the standard hook of mainstream media: If it's somehow promoting right-wing values, it must be bad. If it's promoting individualism, or free markets, then it's 'extremist'. But if it promotes more government, more oversight, more regulation, and stands for 'the common good' - well, then clearly it's a real story and worthy of discussion.
Ultimately, determining what is or isn't 'fake news' requires having a 'skin in the game'. When you're in the game, you have a better perspective about what is really going on. Which is why politics is the ripest field for 'fake news' and its biggest source. Virtually everyone has a role in society, is affected by laws and regulations and therefore has a skin in the political game. However, despite having a skin in it, most citizens are woefully uninformed or misinformed about the proper and traditional role of government - especially as it applies under our Constitution. It's also why, from my perspective, the best solution is to simply reduce government's role in our lives.
