Few news: I don't believe it lan's Rural Ramblings
Journalism is my third career and my second longest at two decades and counting. Hopefully, I may have time for another but I doubt I will ever stop asking questions and putting people, government and organisations on the spot.
With the rise of TV, the Internet and social media news is instant and 24-7. Publishing is down to just how quick one can put a piece or tweet together and hit publish or send, which can be a force for good. Unfortunately, and sadly for me as a media professional that takes great care in what I write, say and photograph, there are people, governments and organisations that regularly either twist the facts to their own agenda or just downright lie.
I’ve long known that public relations people stalk the forums and comments of websites and post their client’s or employer’s point of view posing as individuals. Now social media has the floor and fake news, some of it likely sponsored by very powerful entities, has maybe influenced elections and will likely do so again. Years ago, we called some of this propaganda and it went out as news films or was printed in leaflets and books. Today, digital publishing can influence millions of people if the pitch hits the mark.
There are all kinds of arguments about quotes from Hitler about lying and I’m not going to get into the debate. However, the premise that people will likely believe a big lie rather than a little one makes sense to me. Fake news is lying. From a publisher’s and lawyer’s point of view some fake news is also libelous and therefore actionable if the perpetrators can be tracked down in the maze of servers and connections. Are we about to embark on this route? Can fake news instigated by unfriendly/controlling sources be regarded even as a form of cyber warfare? I think maybe yes to both.
I also like to think I can filter out fake news when I see it. I’m also appalled when the alleged news is hateful, which it frequently seems to be. As far as a lot of the comments that explode into flame wars when someone disagrees with the content, in my book this is bullying. Reasoned debate and civilised argument is fine yet I rarely see this.
The hunt for fake news perpetrators may well be done by those that have published fake news themselves, which shows how much trust I have I guess. So, what to do? The Internet and social media is almost impossible to regulate or control. I’ve said before that I think social media site owners have a responsibility over the content they allow to be published. Libel is written defamation. Not only is the poster and publisher potentially on the hook but anyone that reposts is also regarded as a publisher and could also be in trouble.
I’ve long advocated moderation for social media for all sorts of reasons. However, I’m realistic to know that if social media was moderated correctly then the business model would not be viable. Some of it to me doesn’t seem to be viable without moderation. Therefore, I guess education about libel and items regarded to be hateful or incite others to commit a crime is a start. Followed perhaps by high profile prosecutions. Here the lines blur somewhat when fake news perpetrators could go after other fake news perpetrators. Troubling times.