“So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!” tweeted President Donald Trump on June 27. As a college freshman majoring in journalism, thoughts flooded my mind: “Are news stations really truthful and honest? If the President of the United States sees flaws in journalism, should I really be pursuing it?” President Donald Trump has 38.1 million followers on Twitter alone. Even if I decide that the integrity of the media is clean, I wonder how the President’s remarks will affect the way people view my work as a journalist. 

In discussions of media honesty, one controversial issue has been the new buzz word, “fake news.” I plan to argue the definition of mainstream media and redefine the word “fake” in relation to news sources. My findings suggest that it is social media spreading inaccurate/biased news. These stories are shared over and over by everyday people, giving undeserved power and recognition to unreliable sources. While some say that the responsibility of keeping the media honest falls on the news outlets, the reality is that it is the American people’s responsibility and social duty to keep accurate news in circulation. 

It’s hard to question that validity of a statement coming directly from the President of the United States. Searching for answers, I stumbled across an article from Columbia Journalism Review, “Is 'fake news' a fake problem?” In this article, author Jacob L. Nelson analyzes the concept of ‘fake news.’ While some of the research indicates that news is ‘fake,’ this news is only streamed by social media websites. The “media” that has been under attack by Donald Trump, proves to be fairly unbiased, according to data. Nelson explains that “‘fake news’ is neither straightforward nor easy to define” (Nelson), but argued that “fake news” is essentially news coming from unreliable news sources. One of the reasons why President Donald Trump and the American public question the validity of the news they are reading is not because all news is corrupt, but rather because they are looking in the wrong places. According to Nelson, “Audiences found their way to fake news via social media at a much higher rate than they did to real news. We already know that a majority of US adults get their news via social media platforms. Here, though, we can see that nearly 30 percent of all fake news traffic could be linked back to Facebook, while only 8 percent of real news traffic could” (Nelson). This proves that the majority of fake news is not being relayed by journalists at major/credible news organizations, but rather by everyday people on social media sites. Similarly, Huffington Post journalist and radio host Kevin Price, explains that consumer choice is to blame for inaccurate news and that unlike many other governments, America has the freedom of speech and reports fairly accurate news in comparison. Price explains, “Some governments actually write the news in their countries… People being unable to tell legitimate from fake news is leading to the drum being beat loudly to stop this. However, that type of rhetoric paves the way for censorship. It is better to have a plethora of inaccurate, and even fake, news than have the government telling us what we can produce or consume when it comes to information” (Price). When looking at President Trump’s remarks about the media, it seems as though his statements are contradictory. The President ran for office on the Republican ballot, it would only make sense that he aims to defend freedoms guaranteed to citizens in the constitution. Yet, the President seems to be the media’s biggest critic. Price attributes Americans’ incapability to navigate to credible news sources to the government, specifically the public education system:

“If people are looking for someone to blame for our current “fake news” they can begin by looking at the government itself. The vast majority of Americans (approximately 85 to 90 percent, depending on the source) were educated in public schools. That means a significant amount of information they have on how to interpret news came through their education before they became writers. Also, the general population’s gullibility when it comes to the news stems from what they learned in school. If they were well educated, they would not have these type of problems. Fake news would be quickly dismissed if we had a population that could think critically” (Price).

If true, this assertion would show that it is the government at fault for poor education. Maybe the President is right in claiming that “fake news” is a problem. However, it is not the media to blame, it is the government providing inadequate public education that results in citizens’ inability to decipher credible news from fraudulent. 

Fake news is most times fueled by fraudulent social media content, shared by everyday people. Also, It’s possible that the audience itself creates the bias, by choosing to watch/read polarized channels. In Stephanie Busari’s TedTalk, “How fake news does real harm,” Busari, who is a journalist herself, emphasizes the importance of everyday citizens being aware of what they are publishing. Busari asserts that:

 “There are some very smart people, smart engineers at Google and Facebook, who are trying to use technology to stop the spread of fake news. But beyond that, I think everybody here -- you and I -- we have a role to play in that. We are the ones who share the content. We are the ones who share the stories online. In this day and age, we're all publishers, and we have responsibility. In my job as a journalist, I check, I verify. I trust my gut, but I ask tough questions… I really believe that we must all start to ask tougher questions of information that we discover online. Research shows that some of us don't even read beyond headlines before we share stories” (Busari).

Busari claims that everyday citizens are also part of the media and must conduct research into sources as reporters do. This builds upon Nelson’s argument that unreliable news sources are to blame for inaccurate news. When the public shares incredible news, they take part in creating “fake news.”

Contrasting this opinion is Jason Holt and Rachael Sotos’s book, The Daily Show and Philosophy Moments of Zen in the Art of Fake News. Sotos investigates “the political function of fake news (Holt, Sotos 2)” and possible downfalls of the media. In the chapter, “Truthiness in the Media,” Sotos mentions politicians’ urge to make the news digital, in order to gain a more positive view from the public and describes the positives of social media’s influence, particularly in politics. She points out facts about social media (“fake news”) having positive impacts in politics. Similarly, in “The ‘liberal’ media: bias or customer preferences?” Dr. Daniel Sutter explains that consumers’ preferences lead to honesty or bias in the articles they read; media bias is affected by the consumers’ choice in news sources. 

Jeffrey Lewis, who is an author and historian, argues that “reporting can create its own facts, leading gullible readers to act out of false information or contrived narratives” (Lewis). Lewis specifically points out an instance in October, 2017 where the New York Times reportedly skewed a story relating to relations with North Korea, in order to make headlines. The author provides a transcript from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who was accused of saying North Korea and the US were negotiating. In this transcript, it is very clear that the Times took Tillerson’s words out of context and exaggerated them to form a controversial story, “the New York Times employed the obscure circumlocution “in direct communication” that gave rise to the idea that the United States was negotiating with North Korea” (Lewis). After researching this scenario, I agree with Lewis that the story was not reported honestly. The Times neglected to report the full story, although the intentions behind the mishap are unknown. It’s purely speculation as to whether or not this was intentional; the Times may have been rushing to get the story out and took Tillerson’s words out of context, or the reporter who was assigned the story could have simply messed up. The New York Times publishes hundreds of pieces of content per day, it is unfair to judge the publisher’s credibility based on one story. For this reason, I agree that this story was warped, however Lewis’s claim that “Fake news is threatening a very real war between the US and North Korea” is an invalid, over exaggerated, and generalized conclusion. It is true that the mainstream media fights with competing stations and tries to get more attention. However, it is my belief that this specific reporter was acting on an impulse, possibly under a strict deadline, and the story was not written to create click bait to attract a larger audience. The fact that Lewis is an expert on relations between North Korea and the US, being used as a source in many other Business Insider stories on North Korea relations, leads me to believe that he may have been too critical of reporter who was obviously not caught up on the context of the relations between Korea and the US. As stated in the authority section, Lewis is a Business Insider columnist and a frequently used expert source in various BI news stories. By writing this controversial story attacking the media, he gets increased exposure and promotion for his work on BI and on his own website. Lewis is cited in North Korea articles only because diplomatic relations between the US and North Korea are his specialty; he is very knowledgeable and invested in the specific subject, which could lead to bias. Business Insider is a credible news source, however author Jeffrey Lewis is not an unbiased reporter. He is an expert on North Korea relations, holding a doctorate in the area. Most importantly, it is unclear how much, if any, journalistic training or experience he has. When I noticed that Lewis was mainly used as an expert source by BI, I was very surprised. Usually, reporters are required to keep their beliefs out of the work they/ their colleagues do. Not only does this strike me as a conflict of interest, but readers should be very skeptical of Lewis’s journalistic partnership with Business Insider. Lewis’s overall claim that fake news is leading to war is overgeneralized, but his less-generalized claim that the specific New York Times reporter that wrote the original story was not reporting accurately is valid. 

The Huffington Post published an article detailing the American public’s distrust in the media. It points out the sharp contrast between republican and democratic views on the subject; most democrats report trusting the media, while republicans are more skeptic. Jackson attributes this statistic to President Donald Trump and his administration’s remarks on the media during his election and presidency saying, “Trump and adviser Steve Bannon have referred to the media as the “opposition party.” She also explains that millennials distrust the media substantially more than older generations saying, “Seventy percent of those age 18-34 think most members of the news media are dishonest. That’s compared to 53 percent of 35- to 49-year-olds, 57 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds and only 45 percent of those over age 65 who share that view.” The author, Natalie Jackson, focuses on writing pieces about the public’s opinion on and preceding elections. However, President Trump directly called out The Huffington Post, leading me to question, “What information/ news will I find that the President has not attacked for being “fake?”

Inevitably, some news will be inaccurate. However, reliable news sites do not seem to report untruthfully. Journalists’ jobs are to act as America’s gatekeepers, bringing light to injustices and keeping checks on the government. After analyzing the subject, I’ve come to the conclusion that our President simply does not understand the difference between reliable and unreliable news sources. Credible news outlets prove to report fairly accurate information, leaving social media to blame for inaccurate reports. There’s a mind game being played with this topic; every source reporting on the subject is written by a journalist that is probably biased due to their career. Unfortunately, the prevalence of unjust stigmatization of the media is definitely amplified by President Donald Trump. When looking through news sites, the American public should verify the credibility of the source. When reading the President’s comments on the media, the American public should look into the its validity before formulating an opinion.