Fake news discredits journalists
Those exposed of wrongdoing by reporters exploit the doubt that misinformation engenders
We are living in an era of narrow populist politics, corruption and inequality. It is also an age of social media banalities where everyone is a publisher. And then we have fake news.
Watch how it will increase in the run-up to the ANC elective conference in December, making the muddied waters even darker. Barely one month has passed in 2017 and fakery and disinformation include:
The ANC’s alleged “war room”, created to spread disinformation about opposition parties in the runup to last year’s municipal elections;
Fake posters of Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema with an AK-47;
Fake news that the former public protector, Thuli Madonsela, is a member of the Democratic Alliance;
A fake picture of Ferial Haffajee, The Huffington Post South Africa’s editor-at-large, sitting on the lap of a captain of capital she has never met; and
OOOOFake news sites of media organisations discrediting Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, who has stood firm against the pressures of
Othe ruling faction of the ANC, which is screaming “white monopoly capital” at any of its critics.
This is not an exhaustive list of this year’s fake news.
Newspaper houses have little control over who posts what on social media or the internet in their name. Politicians are grasping the opportunity to tear apart their opponents into the new media space.
Then there is media involved in discrediting opposition to the ruling faction of President Jacob Zuma. Take ANN7 and The New Age. And the tussle for independence at the SABC continues between the public broadcaster’s journalists and its management.
Journalists who uncover corruption are accused of being dishonest. They are also blamed when they fall prey to fake news and disinformation. If they write about state capture and the state of Zuptafication (patronage of politics and business between the president and his friends the Guptas), they are vilified as being the mouthpieces of white monopoly capital.
The public discourse arena is split into two fallacies: you support Zupta or white monopoly capital. To label those critical of corruption and the status quo as white monopoly capital supporters is crude ideological obfuscation. Fake news gets muddled up with real news and nobody knows what to believe. This is where the politicians have the edge — they will do the dastardly deed of planting disinformation and then blame “the media” and “dishonest journalists”.
This is the Trumpian strategy. After United States President Donald Trump realised that the women’s march against racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry had greater numbers than those who celebrated his inauguration he blamed journalists for his unpopularity, alleging that they were the “most dishonest people on the planet”.
These are the tactics politicians use when they have something to hide, such as tax dodging, fraud and other criminal charges, warmongering.
Throw fake news into the mix of ANC elections and politicians’ scapegoating of journalists and citizens becomes confused. Now you hear in public discourse that you can’t trust journalists, you can’t trust the news.
There is a clear line between those supporting a more humane, progressive world of greater social justice — accepting climate change and fighting for equality for the poor, women, immigrants, LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex) people — and those who don’t. South Africa is splitting in the same way — binary oppositions of good and bad.
Then there are the journalists. Whose side are they supposed to be on? According to journalism 101, on one side only — that of the public. Citizens need journalists to expose corruption, hold the powerful to account and use their spaces on air, in the newspapers and online to elucidate a rich diversity of views. In fact, all the views — minus fake news.
What can journalists do to regain credibility for their spaces?
First, accept there will be leaks, some authentic and some disinformation, the planting of documents in inboxes in newsrooms. Journalists, eager to be first with the news, may jump in too quickly, only to realise later the documents were fakes.
Second, journalists have to identify the source, verify the content, then check for context, and be transparent with the evidence after checking the authenticity of documents. In fact, they should be posting the evidence on their websites.
What can editors do? They should trust their journalists but also question them at the same time: Are you 101% sure of your story and sources? Editors should sign off on their journalists’ stories so that they take ultimate responsibility for the news.
What can media owners do? For starters, how about thinking more about quality than profit? The logic is that once you start thinking about quality, and produce it, the profits will come. Instead of putting pressure on editors to fire their seniors in the newsroom and hire youth (young journalists are cheaper and are more au fait with the latest multimedia tech), they should keep the experience and institutional memories in the newsroom. Apparently, the older folk (over 40) spot mistakes and fake news quicker than the younger ones.
The public, consumers of news and social media users, need to be vigilant. Scrutinise the posters: the one of Malema with an AK-47 was not a recent picture — he has lost lots of weight since — and work out that Haffajee would not be sitting on anyone’s lap for a photograph.
When you pass on something sensational that you are not sure is real, you are a participant in fake news, damaging other people’s reputations. That means you are as bad as dirty politicians.