The (ir)relevance of "fake news"
Raul Ferrer Conill
Karlstad University, Sweden
ECREA Newsletter editor
ECREA’s commitment to communication research and education is the leading focus of the association. Often, the attempt to contribute to the academic discussion overshadows the necessity of also hearing the personal opinion of scholars and researchers. We wanted to momentarily shift that focus and provide a space where academics can voice their opinion about contemporary topics at the forefront of the public debate.
For the first newsletter, we asked the management team of the Communication and Democracy section – Maria Kyriakidou, Anne Kaun and Julie Uldam – and the chair of the Journalism Studies section, Arjen van Dalen, to share their views and opinion about the sudden relevance of “fake news” and the apparent emergence of a so-called “post-truth” era.
The issue of information pollution is not new, but its rise to prominence is predominantly due to scale and instrumentality. On the one hand, the current digital media environment facilitates massive campaigns of misinformation, both manually and algorithmically. On the other hand, the instrumental use of “fake news” seems to aim to strategically affect political narratives and public opinion. Indeed, the UK Brexit referendum and the results of the US election propelled “fake news” to the centre of communication and media debate.
Our concerns lie beyond the notion of “fake news” per se. The novelty about the current emergence of “fake news” lies in its indiscriminate use of the term as a way to delegitimize the media. The Trump administration has been particularly effective in questioning facts that do not align with their narrative. Relentlessly, White House officials, commentators, and pundits have claimed that mainstream media are fabricating the news. The offensive has been so successful that today, suggesting “alternative facts” as the real narrative seems to matter next to nothing. Working the “fake news” moniker neutralizes traditional forms of accountability and cements the notion that gut feeling is truer than facts.
Such a development has potential implications for the democratic functions of western democracies. Kyriakidou, Kaun, and Uldam recognise “fake news” as a problem intensified by similar processes such as the increasing dominance of quantification and the commodification of user behaviour. Algorithmic thinking, they claim, is seeping into academic culture, leading to a mindset that rewards sensationalism and exaggeration over more thoughtful research. When institutions – politics, media, and academia – use tactics of less-than-reputable actors in the public arena, they relinquish the legitimacy they had and open the space for “fake news” to emerge and be consumed. In their thought-provoking text, they call for a reconsideration of the socio-cultural environment that promotes the metricated mindset instead of media literacy and public engagement.
In a similarly critical text, van Dalen discusses one of the media’s attempts to tackle “fake-news”. Fact-checking has emerged with the intent of debunking “fake news”, setting the record straight, and moving on. What van Dalen convincingly argues, is that the problem of “fake news” is so deep and complex, that with the use of fact-checking, news organizations might be shooting themselves in the foot while reinforcing the message that ´fake news’ brings. The irony here would be delightful, were the outcome not utterly worrying. Thankfully, van Dalen concludes his piece with a set of recommendations for news media and fact-checkers that may help avoid paving the way for information polluters.
Whether we call it “fake news”, information pollution or misinformation, it appears that such a development might be a symptom, rather than an outcome. The public and the media might be stuck on the term, but its appearance in the spotlight might overshadow much more complex underlying issues. Much will be required of media and communication scholars if we are to make sense of an environment where the meaning of truth is unattainable and for some, irrelevant.
