Perhaps it's my interest in journalism that has spawned my interest and worry in our society about the idea of news. Back in my day, I remembered discussing yellow journalism, ambulance chasing, and what was newsworthy and not. I don't ever remember, though, discussing fake news. The closest thing I can remember to this term was the study of propaganda.
Today more and more I find myself wondering about the difference between what we now call "fake news" and what we once called "propaganda".
Note the online definition for propaganda by Dictionary.com "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc."
Now take a look at the online definition by Dictionary.com for fake news - "false news stories, often of a sensational nature, created to be widely shared online for the purpose of generating ad revenue via web traffic or discrediting a public figure, political movement, company, etc."
So what's the difference? And why use one term over another? So when President Trump describes information as "fake news", he essentially is claiming that the information is "propaganda", which is information intentionally spread to discredit or harm someone or something...
So the President is claiming that that at least what I had previously considered to be trustworthy news outlets like NBC, CBS, and ABC are in fact organizations that are intentionally spreading information with the intent to harm. Ugh. And he's saying that Fox News is an organization that avoids "fake news". Really?
I also remember from my high school journalism days with Mr. Davis at RHS that the U.S. Constitution, in the First Amendment, protects the freedom of the press. I find myself asking, though, what is "the press" and what is "news commentary"? I have no qualms against news commentary, as the first amendment also protects free speech. In fact, I find it entertaining at times to view the spectrum of commentary that can surface from just a bit of factual news.
Where I'm really struggling is determining the difference between objective news coverage through the "freedom of the press" and opinion-based commentary perspectives through the "freedom of speech". So I ask, how about some type of warning label? We get warning labels a lot of different places to let consumers know exactly what they are getting when they consume a product. How about a warning label before a particular segment of information that alerts consumers that what they are about to see and hear could potentially contain propaganda that could be harmful to at least someone or some group? Or how about a warning label before a particular segment of information that alerts consumers that what they are about to see and hear are facts reported in an objective manner through quality journalism that may also be harmful but are definitely true?
So there you go....that's what I want. In addition to a warning from my television station telling me that the Deadpool movie I'm watching may contain violence or adult material, I'd like a warning from the sponsoring television station telling me that this evening's NBC news broadcast or Fox News show could potentially contain propaganda - information that is intentionally spread in order to harm. How about that members of congress? Could we get legislation requiring information agencies to label their information? Any bi-partisan agreement on that one?
No comments:
Post a Comment