Fake news and skepticism

Fake news has been in the news of late. As if it were something new.

Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, yellow journalism. They have been with us through the ages. Whether for political or military advantage, religious supremacy, commercial gain, or just malicious gossip, distortion of the truth has a long, sad human history.

In those olden days, the creators and disseminators of widespread untruthful information tended to be state actors or large organizations simply because of the cost of such an endeavor. Gutenberg’s printing press lowered the cost barrier, but it remained relatively high.

More recently but pre-internet, we relied on the reporting and editorial prowess of respected news organizations to gather, proctor, authenticate, and disseminate our news. We knew to trust the news arms of CBS, NBC, and ABC. The New York Times was beyond reproach. For nearby news, our local newspapers provided the same service.

But these brick and mortar news organizations, with reporters and editors, correspondents and investigators, newsrooms and presses, cost money. A lot of money. These costs need be paid by advertising or subscriptions or both.

What is different now is the existence of the internet, social media, and the wild proliferation of smart phones. We can consume news twenty four hours a day, share it, comment on it, be thrilled or repelled by it, and all this for free. (Well, not counting the cost of our phone and wireless bill).

But it is a basic dictum that accurate information is at once valuable and expensive. Free information is not always false and expensive information is not always true, but the odds are very much in favor.

Today, with the wonder of the internet, anyone can publish “news” at his or her whim. And with a modicum of skill, can even create a Facebook page or website which appears to be an authentic replica of a trusted news source.

What is an earnest seeker of truth to do?

The first is to recognize that the major news organizations all have a presence on the internet and still provide that valuable service of authentication. They are not perfectly unbiased, but tend to cluster within center-left to center-right views.  The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are not likely to outright lie to you, but they will each have their own partisan tilt. A well-informed reader might read them both. (Subscriptions could be an expensive problem which a visit to your local library might solve).

Outside of well-known sources, our next best defense is a healthy sense of skepticism. Particularly alluring are stories which pander to our own biases. It is with these that we must be most skeptical. Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring in a pizzeria? Donald Trump was a member of the KKK? Really?

The more your personal vibes are pleasantly resonating with this kind of news, the more the need for skepticism. Don’t “like,” don’t share, don’t comment, until you’ve confirmed the report from a trusted, mainstream source.

And please realize that your favorite sites, the ones that always resonate with your belief system, are not likely to be unbiased. Breitbart and ThinkProgress are guaranteed to each have their own strong partisan slant. Depending on your politics, you will likely love one and hate the other. But neither are giving you a balanced view of the facts.

Here is another litmus test. If your news source doesn’t occasionally make you a bit uncomfortable, if it always panders to your worldview, then you are most likely not getting straight news.

Become a savvy internet user. Websites and Facebook pages can be made to look like an authentic news site, with page names or URLs which are not-quite-right. In this age of disintermediation, we must all become our own fact checkers. Be skeptical, don’t believe everything you see.

And finally, seek out viewpoints that make you a bit uncomfortable, and try to understand them. That is how we grow.

Now go forth and conquer!