Whitehall bans the use of ‘fake news’ in case it misleads public
“FAKE news” has become an increasingly common insult as political rivals accuse each other of attempting to obfuscate the truth. But the term has been banned in Whitehall in case its misleads or confuses the public.
The phrase, a favourite of Donald Trump, the US president, will no longer appear in policy documents or official papers, being replaced by “misinformation” or “disinformation”.
This is because it is “a poorly defined and misleading term that conflates a variety of false information, from genuine error to foreign interference in democratic processes”, officials said.
While ministers may speak freely in the House of Commons, documents referring to election meddling or internet safety must use the new definition.
‘We need a coordinated approach to combat disinformation campaigns by Russian agencies’
The ban was prompted by an inquiry into “fake news” led by the digital, culture, media and sports committee. It followed concerns that Russia meddled with the 2016 US presidential election and the EU referendum.
After the inquiry, the committee released an interim report that warned of a “democratic crisis founded upon the manipulation of personal data that targeted users with pernicious views, particularly in elections and referendums”.
Of the 42 recommendations, three were accepted and four dismissed.
The Government rejected proposals for a new tax on Facebook and Twitter, vetoed a change in the rules covering political spending online and refused to disclose how many investigations are being carried out into Russian interference in UK politics.
Damian Collins, the committee chairman, said: “The government’s response … is disappointing and a missed opportunity. It uses other investigations to further delay desperately needed announcements on the issues of harmful and misleading content being spread through social media.
“We need to see a more coordinated approach to combat campaigns of disinformation being organised by Russian agencies. The Government’s response gives us no real indication of what action is being taken.”