“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.” In what follows, 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 and 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 President Donald Trump, proves to be fairly unbiased, according to data. Nelson explains that “‘fake news’ is neither straightforward nor easy to define,” but adds that “fake news” is essentially news coming from unreliable news sources. 

One of the reasons why President 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.” 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 consumers are 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.

Many US citizens take their freedom of speech/press for granted. Information is not filtered by the government, which may be why some news is inaccurate. However, if it were filtered by the government, citizens would not have the ability to say whatever they want and publish popular or unpopular opinions. The freedom of speech allows for unrestricted media in the country, and thus, allows for democracy.

President Donald Trump, who has certainly exercised his freedom of speech, has made numerous contradictory statements about the media and their right to publish news that he didn’t agree with. The President ran for office on the Republican ballot; Republicans believe in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. It would only make sense that President Trump aims to defend freedoms guaranteed to citizens in the U.S. Constitution, such as the freedom of speech. Yet, the President seems to be the media’s biggest critic. Ironically, Price attributes Americans’ incapability to navigate to credible news sources to the government, the home of President Trump himself. He points specifically to 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 types of problems. Fake news would be quickly dismissed if we had a population that could think critically.

If the government provided students a better education, they would learn critical thinking skills necessary for assessing “fake news.” 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 distinguish credible news from lies and untruths. 

Another factor diminishing the credibility of news is consumers’ media preferences. In “Who Filters Your News?” Ethan Zuckerman talks about the shift from professional news content, to social media user-generated content. Zuckerman explains that “Before the internet, publishing had been a distinction, with a limited number of people lucky, talented or wealthy enough to share ideas or images with a wide audience. After the rise of social media, publishing became a default, with non-participation the exception.” Content is no longer exclusively created by trained professionals, it is now created by anyone ages 13 and up on Facebook and many other social media sites. These citizens do not have journalistic experience, yet their work is being self-published to millions of users. 

In addition, social media sites use specific algorithms to create content echo-chambers for their users. These filtering softwares create “the filter bubble.” Zuckerman defines this as “the idea that our natural tendencies towards homophily get amplified by filters designed to give us what we want, not ideas that challenge us, leading to ideological isolation and polarization.” Since these filters aim to give readers what they’re looking for, they often disregard fake news sites, but place priority on showing news that will appeal to the people. Realizing the pertinence of the subject, President Obama made a point to integrate the issue into his Farewell Address on January 10th:

For too many of us, it's become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste -- all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that's out there.

It is clear that these tendencies, encouraged by social media, are detrimental to our opinion-making capabilities. Politicians, educators, journalists, and public figures are pleading with the public to recognise social media’s schemes and traps. They urge the American people to  think carefully before reading and resharing the narrow content they are being fed. If every person with a social media account were to critically analyze stories before sharing, the spread of fake news would decline dramatically.

Similarly, Stephanie Busari presented a TedTalk stating that fake news is most times fueled by fraudulent social media content, shared by everyday people. It is possible, and highly probable, that the audience itself creates the bias by choosing to reshare inaccurate or biased news stories. In her TedTalk, “How Fake News Does Real Harm,” Stephanie, 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 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 dubious content, they take part in creating “fake news.”

A different opinion is put forth in Rachael Sotos’s book, The Daily Show and Philosophy Moments of Zen in the Art of Fake News. Sotos examines “the political function of fake news” and possible downsides of the media. In the chapter, “Truthiness in the Media,” Sotos mentions politicians’ interest in making the news digital- in order to present a more positive image to the public. While these politicians may have ill-intent, wanting to take advantage of the younger demographic, the authors also describe the positive influence of social media- particularly in politics. There is a large amount of voter apathy amongst young people. By promoting politics on social media sites, important policies are brought to the attention of young adults.  In a study done by The Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Engagement, it was found that “approximately 50 percent of eligible young people—about 24 million youth, ages 18-29—voted in the 2016 general election.” Minimal exposure to politics has led to voter apathy in young adults. With only 50 percent of young people voting, there is no way that the entire population is fairly represented. By increasing media exposure, millenials have the chance to become more aware of policies that directly affect them and get more involved.

Those with opposing viewpoints claim that the mainstream media is corrupt, seeking for high view counts, regardless of the cost. 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 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.” 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. 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 aged 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.” 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. Citizens of the United States are alloted the freedom of speech, leaving potential for inaccuracies in reporting. However, reliable news sites rarely report untruthfully. Controversial stories may be published, generating attention towards scandalous subjects. Still, journalists’ jobs are to act as America’s gatekeepers, bringing light to injustices and keeping checks on the government. Without the media, scandals such as Whitewater, Watergate, the Iran Contra Affair, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and many others, might have never been uncovered. 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. I’ve come to the conclusion that our President simply does not understand the difference between reliable and unreliable news sources. 

When looking through news sites and resharing on social media, 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 validity of his tweets and personal credibility before formulating an opinion.
