Legitimate media as source of fake news

Among the promoters of fake news, legitimate media, the Facebook CEO says, poses the more serious threat. It may because it is still generally considered as more believable than other sources of news and information.

Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg has identified as fake news “promoters” these three: spammers or unethical advertisers, state actors, and legitimate media.

And legitimate media, he said, pose the “most challenging” threat. Spammers may be removed although it could take time and diligence. State actors like Russia and other countries with their bot armies can be dealt with by the nations attacked such the U.S. which documented Russian meddling in its 2016 elections.

Mimicked

Though the credibility of legitimate media has been shrinking through the years, its journalists tend to be relied more than nameless, unidentified or disguised sources of news. That names of legitimate news organizations are mimicked under fictitious web sites to mislead readers shows that legitimate media still get some trust and attention.

Legitimate journalists have names and faces, their organization with a specific location, and can be held accountable for what they print or broadcast.

That must be why Zuckerberg thinks that fake news originating from legitimate media can inflict more harm than those fabricated by apparently bogus sites. Charges of fake news against, say, just recently, Rappler and a “Manila Times” columnist are more disturbing. The said news organizations are expected to enforce journalism norms, which is only hoped for and not seen in other news sources.

Distinction

The definition of “fake news” by the Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC), released last April, clearly distinguishes fabricated content from errors in reporting and editing. The first is fake news; the other is violation of standards.

But the distinction doesn’t mean legitimate media cannot be guilty of fake news. But to mistake one for the other, such as calling as fake news a story that didn’t immediately include the side of a government agency is wrongful distortion of meaning.

CCPC, which started its work of defining “fake news” last year, has left open the search for meaning. The harm that “misinformation, disinformation and mal-information” can inflict may be much worse and “complicated” than what many people fear about fake news.

More nuanced

Fake news has become a “more nuanced” issue. Claire Wardle, strategy and resident director of First Draft News, a non-profit research group,

shuns the phrase from her conversation. She told CNN “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter that she hates “f*** news” (articulating the asterisks). It has become weaponized, she said, referring to its use by politicians to any story they don’t like. “We have to respond and just not use the word.”

That, she must know, is reaching for the sky. Word usage is decided by the greater number of people, not by a few who worry over its misuse or abuse.

“F **** news” has become weaponized.