Identifying fact and truth is part of making sense of the fake news eraDate: 12/16/2016 What the heck is “truth” and what are “facts?” It used to be a relatively easy answer. A “truth” or a “fact” was a statement that could be verified as accurate and it was presented in a context so people would have enough information to judge it themselves.
For my industry, facts are the currency on which journalism is based or at least that’s what has been taught in journalism schools for decades. That concept, though, of presenting a statement that can be verified, that can be attributed to a source and can be considered indisputable is increasingly old fashioned in today’s media that is fueled by social media.
I’m greatly disturbed by the entire “fake news” phenomena and how it colors the nature of public discourse. I’m thankful it has not spread to the level of local news, but I can envision a time when it could.
The problem is that mass media is regressing, not progressing. In the 19th century it was common for newspapers to reflect the political inclinations of its publishers. There were publications that gladly and proudly wore their politics on their sleeves. When you picked up such a publication you probably knew ahead of time what you were going to get.
The idea of more objective journalism was led by Walter Lippmann, a journalist and columnist whose book “Public Opinion” in 1922 set forth a number of principles that have shaped the industry such as the protection of sources.
Lippmann, who was awarded two Pulitzer Prizes, once said, “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.”
Today the question is who is the devil and how does one go about shaming him?
I would be very interested to climb into the Wayback machine, grab Lippmann and bring him back here to show him Facebook and Twitter. Would the democratic nature of new media appeal to him or would he be horrified by the complete lawlessness of Internet/social media-based news?
What can the average person do to ensure what he or she reads, watches or hears is accurate? Double-checking the sources of a meme or story is one step. Understanding from where a story first was seen? Examining how a story was written? Are the quotes attributed to real people or is the story based on information given off-the-record or on background?
Perhaps, though, more importantly does the average person today care about the accuracy of something they consume or are they more interested in simply having their own opinions reinforced instead of challenged?
We’ve seen that in national politics and local races as well. Some of the candidates in the Hampden County Sheriff’s race were clearly supported by people who didn’t question some of the statements made by candidates.
We are now entering a period in which if a person disagrees with a news report, they can simply call it “fake news.” It doesn’t matter if the outlet in question is considered generally reliable and above board. If the story offends it has to be “fake.”
Fact-checking sites? Politically skewed. Video that shows someone taking an action or making a statement? Ignore it. Facts evolve. Audio recordings? Who cares. Everyone talks like that.
I’ve seen this attitude more and more on Facebook and I’m waiting for the trend to filter down to local issues, which I’m sure it will eventually happen. I keep hoping for a reversal.
We have a role as citizens and that is to be involved, to challenge ourselves and our beliefs, to understand that not every issue is black and white and that life is increasingly complicated.
Chalking up a story with which you disagree as “fake” is easy, but it doesn’t serve our democratic aspirations.
|
