Micaela Marshall
mm392413@ohio.edu
Did the term "fake news" not exist until Donald J. Trump first tweeted about it December 10, 2016?
 |
| Source: Twitter, @realDonaldTrump |
As President Trump would say, WRONG!
The idea of fake news began as early as the 16th century.
"Other thinges are in this Court at a good price, or to say it better, very good cheap: that is to wit, cruel lies, false news, vnhonest women, fayned friendship, continuall enimities, doubled malice, vaine words, and false hopes, or whiche eight things we haue suche abundance in this Courte, that they may set out bouthes, and proclayme faires." -Antonio de Guevara, The Familiar Epistles of Sir Anthony of Guevara (trans. By Edward Hellowes), 1575
But, back then it was known as "false news," and the term was not limited to political stories. False narratives being printed and distributed is not a new concept or phenomena, but fake news is relatively new - just not as new as you may have been led to believe.
"Other thinges are in this Court at a good price, or to say it better, very good cheap: that is to wit, cruel lies, false news, vnhonest women, fayned friendship, continuall enimities, doubled malice, vaine words, and false hopes, or whiche eight things we haue suche abundance in this Courte, that they may set out bouthes, and proclayme faires." -Antonio de Guevara, The Familiar Epistles of Sir Anthony of Guevara (trans. By Edward Hellowes), 1575
But, back then it was known as "false news," and the term was not limited to political stories. False narratives being printed and distributed is not a new concept or phenomena, but fake news is relatively new - just not as new as you may have been led to believe.
In the late 18th century, the word "fake" was added to our vocabulary. And the word "fake news" has had increasingly widespread use ever since. Does this mean "fake news" will be added to the dictionary and recognized as a legitimate term anytime soon? Apparently not, according to an article by Merriam-Webster.
Regardless if the dictionary recognizes the term right now or not - the threat of fake news is very real.
When arguably the most influential and powerful man in the world, President Trump, consistently bashes the media and claims many of the world's most respected publications are actually "fake news," it creates a sense of distrust in the journalism profession as a whole. It directly impacts the way Americans view the media.
In fact, we are living in a time where the public's trust in the media is the lowest it has ever been in history - where only 30% of Americans trust the media "a great deal or a good amount."
Freedom of the press is a First Amendment right, which protects American journalists. Freedom of speech is another First Amendment right, which protects our president from any consequences of tweeting about how the news media is fake.
But if illegitimate reporters and people who hide behind their smartphones to post and share fake news on Facebook simply to make money off of clickbait are truely the ones creating this falsehood of information - is that really "the failing New York Times" fault?
And what kind of a message does it send that the president praises only cable TV shows like Fox and Friends consistently? Does that mean that the public should also only trust conservative talk shows and every other publication is simply spreading lies?
Should the public only believe what the president does? Should the public only trust what the president trusts? The backbone of journalism is to inform the public of the truth and relay information they deserve and need to know. So why would the media want to spread fake news?
One of the primary functions of journalism is to act as a watchdog of the government. If the government blatantly shuts down formerly considered trustworthy news sources such as CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post - does that mean journalists can't act as a watchdog without being deemed fake? Is saying something unflattering about the president automatically untrue? That seems to contradict journalism's purpose to hold the government accountable.
Unfortunately, now fake news has become a punchline for anytime someone chooses not to believe what they read or hear. If everything except for what the president tweets is fake, who holds his words to an ethical standard?
Regardless if the dictionary recognizes the term right now or not - the threat of fake news is very real.
When arguably the most influential and powerful man in the world, President Trump, consistently bashes the media and claims many of the world's most respected publications are actually "fake news," it creates a sense of distrust in the journalism profession as a whole. It directly impacts the way Americans view the media.
In fact, we are living in a time where the public's trust in the media is the lowest it has ever been in history - where only 30% of Americans trust the media "a great deal or a good amount."
Freedom of the press is a First Amendment right, which protects American journalists. Freedom of speech is another First Amendment right, which protects our president from any consequences of tweeting about how the news media is fake.
But if illegitimate reporters and people who hide behind their smartphones to post and share fake news on Facebook simply to make money off of clickbait are truely the ones creating this falsehood of information - is that really "the failing New York Times" fault?
And what kind of a message does it send that the president praises only cable TV shows like Fox and Friends consistently? Does that mean that the public should also only trust conservative talk shows and every other publication is simply spreading lies?
Should the public only believe what the president does? Should the public only trust what the president trusts? The backbone of journalism is to inform the public of the truth and relay information they deserve and need to know. So why would the media want to spread fake news?
One of the primary functions of journalism is to act as a watchdog of the government. If the government blatantly shuts down formerly considered trustworthy news sources such as CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post - does that mean journalists can't act as a watchdog without being deemed fake? Is saying something unflattering about the president automatically untrue? That seems to contradict journalism's purpose to hold the government accountable.
Unfortunately, now fake news has become a punchline for anytime someone chooses not to believe what they read or hear. If everything except for what the president tweets is fake, who holds his words to an ethical standard?
No comments:
Post a Comment