If the public discourse in the United States is any indication, then people in the US mean different things by ‘fake news’. Naturally, then, it is time to agree on a definition of ‘fake news’. While we’re at it, let’s distinguish ‘fake news’ from other terms.

Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 6, 2017

1. Let’s Agree On Terms

As I see it, we will need to distinguish between at least three terms: fake news, conspiracy theory, and journalism.

A Definition of ‘Fake News’

Also known as “fictional news”. Characterized by outlandish stories — sometimes about paranormal and supernatural events. Any explicit claims to truth are obviously belied by their only semi-serious and comedic tone. Examples include many of the cover stories of the Weekly World News as well as some of the satirical punchlines of The Daily Show.

A Definition of ‘Conspiracy Theory’

Bad explanations designed to glorify their author and undermine the author’s perceived nemeses. Sometimes unfalsifiable. Alas, believed by many people. Examples are voluminous. Examples include certain explanations of the assignation of John F. Kennedy and InfoWars’ Alex Jones’s claims that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged.

A Definition of ‘Journalism’

Professional gathering and reporting of information to society. Sometimes journalists publish errors. But unlike other content producers, journalists tend to publish corrections as soon as possible. (Errors ≠ satire, fiction, lies, etc.).

Most people rely on some form of journalism. So, ideally, journalists are free to investigative and criticize powerful people and groups; And, ideally, the powerful people and groups do not use their power to undermine journalists’ freedom or credibility. Because when the press is not free and trusted to do so, crime, corruption, and wrongdoing can go unnoticed or unchecked.

2. Let’s Agree on the Terms of Discourse

Obviously, we can disagree about the nuances of each term and its use. But if we want to have any meaningful discourse about the news, then we cannot let our disagreement get out of hand. That brings me to three agreements that we should make despite our disagreements.

First, we should agree to distinguish between these terms and to use the same definitions. And if we cannot agree on definitions, then we should note that disagreement so as to avoid talking past one another.

Second, when asked to clarify our use of a term — e.g., ‘fake news’ — we should (i) clearly explain how we are using the term and (ii) explain why our use of the term is merited.

Third, we should not lazily resort to defensive or rhetorical tactics during the discourse—e.g., labelling news that challenges our views or values as “fake” or “biased”. Rather, we should work hard to interpret each other charitably, ask good questions, attempt to assume others’ perspectives, and provide helpful answers. Moreover, we should regularly remind ourselves that we’re not enemies. We’re in this together.

3. Further Reading

Of course, there’s a literature on all of this. Interested readers can scratch the surface of that literature by reading, say, Wikipedia entries on ‘fake news’, ‘conspiracy theory’, and ‘journalism’.

Related Posts

SaveSave