Since studying journalism at university and reading Evelyn Waugh’s renowned novel; Scoop, I have believed neutrality of the press is a vital part of democracy. Yet, much has been written, and it’s clear to see, that increasingly, news journalism is no longer the reporting of facts and provision of balanced viewpoints, instead it is often about sensationalism and personal commentary.
The question is, does it still matter? Or should media outlets simply give the public what they (seemingly) want? After all who actually wants the truth. When mass shootings in the US become commonplace, and people are struggling to keep their lights and heating on, we could be forgiven for wanting to escape from reality for a while.
Let’s face it Britain has never been able to claim it has a bipartisan press. Newspapers have always made their political stances clear through their editorial and columnists are hired precisely because of their strong and often controversial opinions.
However, in line with the rise of social media and digital outlets, this partisanship is seeping into every aspect of journalism. The reason this is so concerning when it comes to hard news, is that the conflation of news and commentary has led to the rise of ‘fake news’ which is as insidious as it is dangerous.
Since the media has extended beyond print publications, the distinction between news and comment has become blurred. Readers can no longer distinguish between the two or more worryingly, perhaps no longer care to.
Initially, the ability to add your thoughts in the comment section of an article or to share it on social media, adding your opinion and commentary, was seen as a much needed addition to the world of journalism. It appeared as a check and balance on writers and publishers alike, signifying that top down journalism was no longer relevant, reminding them that audiences are not passive but have their own opinions too.
Since then things have evolved at breakneck pace. Having exposed the myth that news journalists deal only in facts, a portion of the public, have taken it upon themselves to promote anti-journalism journalism. This group opt to trade in views. The issue is that presenting news-as-comment is one step away from fake news.
The irony is that by aiming to combat mainstream media, which they regard as fake news, they themselves have actually helped to create a far more toxic flow of fake news.
No longer an innocent mistake, fake News 2.0 is now propagated by an increasing number of propagandists and mischief-makers. These are no longer individuals, instead big businesses are getting in on the act and are already exploiting what they see as the next golden opportunity; weaponising opinions, in order to make huge sums of money.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal is the perfect example of this. From Brexit, to Trump’s election campaign, it has become glaringly apparent that the rise in fake news has the ability to alter the course of history, affecting the lives of millions.
Until regulators and law makers catch up with this phenomenon, digital and social media platforms are set to continue to be the wild wild west of news reporting for the 21st century. Platforms on which elections and referendums are won and lost, diseases and vaccines are politicised (no matter the cost or loss of life), the ability to incite hatred and vitriol runs unchecked and, perhaps most painfully, where harrowing real life events can be ruthlessly denied, no matter how damning the evidence (as seen in the fake news videos disseminated on YouTube following the Las Vegas shooting massacre), will continue, causing ever increasing societal fractures.
Scary stuff. So what can we do about it? Sticking with approved news sources is a great place to start. Traditional newspapers and their digital counterparts, with long standing journalists who are experts in their field are a safe bet. Make sure you know what their political standpoint is before diving in and view everything as objectively as possible, keeping this firmly front of mind.
To avoid only being served content that reconfirms and backs up your existing views, dare to challenge yourself by reading a paper with a conflicting political standpoint to your own. You may be surprised and find some long standing views and opinions begin to change as a result. If not, at least you will be fully aware of what the ‘other side’ is reporting and commenting on.
If you use social media as your main source of news (we don’t advise it but if you do), make sure you also delve deeper. Research and attempt to find the original source material quoted in the post you are reading. If you can’t find it or the original context conflicts with the nature of the post you are reading, it’s time to get sceptical.
And finally whatever platform you are consuming your media on, apply these questions to everything you read: whose opinion is this? Which voices are absent and why? What does the author stand to gain by writing from this viewpoint? Who stands to lose from this piece? Are any experts quoted? What is their background and are they credible? Is the piece based on proven fact or opinion/conjecture?
Perhaps by applying these filters each time we consume media of any kind, we can collectively avoid being sucked into the fake news 2.0 pandemic, at least until the powers that be catch up and put much needed checks and balances in place.
Until then, question everything.
