Bringing up this quote now is perfect: we're smack dab in the midst of the 'fake news' era. A painful and inescapable phrase, it's been hashtagged, chanted and otherwise decreed with little thought behind the reason.
(In case you've been living blissfully under a rock and/or near a hard place, 'fake news' is a catch-all term for newspaper, television or blog media manipulation that could include statistics bent to convey an agenda, facts conveniently left out to paint a new narrative, one side of a story ignored to benefit the other side, etc. It is truly dangerous if presented in a convincing manner on a trustworthy platform.)
Sure, "fake news" [in other words] have been shouted from the rooftops for years as a deterrent to quell rumors and half-truths from half baked reporters whose only credentials are owning a microphone and knowing that they probably heard from someone who may have partially said something. This is bad, legitimate fake news. Fiction based on a true story, a la the National Enquirer.
Blinding bias-holders command, "It can't be true if I don't believe it. Trump with a double bogey on eleven? Yeah right - fake news!!"
As troubling as this completely unreasonable logic is, just as concerning are the many times when the so-called mainstream media rushed slapdash reports to press for the scoop.
With media outlets on the prowl to be the first to break any story (sometimes at any cost) across the 24/7 online cycle, some investigative checking may seem too cumbersome and time-consuming in the right now. So a breaking scandal is presented as "Developing - more details as we receive them".
In essence, we're sometimes presented just a peephole's worth of the whole image. We consumers want instant gratification, which usually results in more retweets, website hits and remote control flips to the first camera on the scene. With increases in those figures comes increase in ad revenue. Higher ratings = more people knowing about a product or service. A smart ploy by commercial businesses, but this method is flipping things backwards - taking power away from the programmer and giving it to the advertiser.
For example, if NBC's ratings sore thanks to being the first to report when a terrorist cell's plan is foiled, Gatorade may come a knocking with more sacks of cash than they'd later offer to ABC, the second (but more thorough) to report on the full plot. Hypothetically, ABC discovered this terror group was instead a lone, bumbling bomber hampered by a rent-a-cop. Much better coverage, but much less sexy. Thus, did NBC hurry to win advertising bucks and serve up 'fake news'?
Even with that said, no underpaid, under appreciated and under pressure journalist is flubbing the news on purpose just so it can hit the wire first. (Except maybe a Thomas Dewey fan from Chicago in 1948. Oops!)Alternatively, those in the general public who cling to terms like "fair and balanced" will point out a journalist's "liberal bias" and think he/she is trying to create a deeper divide within the nation no matter the circumstance.
I see a soft news piece on feeding hungry, stray dogs. They (conservatives, the 'right', a silent majority... whatever label du jour you fancy) think the reporter must be in the pocket of big Purina to bail out these pooches instead of letting Darwinism take over. [This is not the most ludicrous re-spin of the news I've seen... this week.]
Back to the root argument of the spread of 'fake news': is what these aforementioned citizens think is 'fake news' actually 'fake news'?
To that I'd ask them: why is the mainstream press so "liberal" anyway?
Well... to get into the field and succeed, one must be well-read and research the issues or talk to all involved surrounding an event. (Or just a starry-eyed, yet-to-be-beaten-down-by-life idealist fresh out of college. That's characterization is for another day, though.)
CNN is real news, just glitzed up with quick whiz-bang graphics to told minute attention spans. They purposely choose to gloss over a nitty gritty, but very important details crucial to understanding the entire story for time constraints, but their motives are probably pure. Editorial comments slipped in by talking heads and camera-ready reporters aside, CNN is not undermining anyone undeserving.But for its ne'er-to-do critics (remember the opening quote: they're more ignorant than plain stupid), they'd rather swing the pendulum so far the other way that they empower actual fake news outlets (looking at you, Brietbart and friends).
The distrust of any authority figure in the news industry existed long before Trump gave it an easy to remember slogan, but now 'fake news' is a weightless rallying cry in action that would surely frighten Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
The poor saps who chose to forcefully ignore any election content from the New York Post and its brethren were lead to slaughter and willingly tricked into electing a piped piper of populism as commander-in-tweet.
Now we're stuck with fake news combating what M.A.G.A. diehards ignorantly and stubbornly denounce as 'fake news'.
*Sigh*
So, as an honest and unconnected spectator, what should you even believe anymore? Totally tune out media forever? Even question what Steve Inskeep says on Morning Edition?
It's simply time to wise up and don't fall for the buzzwords and distress tactics being thrown from all sides of broadcast and print (there are apparently "very fine people on both sides", ya know!).
Before turning this into a freedom of speech debate, do you recall the old analogy of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre? Such an action is inadmissible under the Bill of Right's famed 1st Amendment as doing so only adds more fuel to the [metaphorical] fire. That is 100% what 'fake news' is - spreading deception for personal gain.
When you read or hear a headline, don't automatically believe the hype. But also, don't automatically discredit its entire merit. Use your brain and draw your own conclusions to fill in the grey matter.
Opinions are not news. Hate speech is not free speech. And not everything is a deep-state conspiracy.
