Evidence
to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee 'Fake news' inquiry presented by members
of the Centre for Politics & Media Research, Faculty for Media &
Communication, Bournemouth University, UK.
Author:
Darren G. Lilleker, Associate Professor of Political Communication
Contributors: Jenny Alexander, Dalia ElSheikh, David McQueen, Barry
Richards and Einar Thorsen
The concept of fake
news is problematic. It is a catch-all term with multiple definitions that has
the capacity to undermine the role of media as the fourth estate as well as the
civic attitudes that underpin democratic culture. Our report outlines the
definitions and underlying practices captured by the term, demonstrating how
fake news is used to confirm existing biases and beliefs. Our contention is,
however, that confirmation bias can only be relied upon where facts, and the
sources of facts, are contested and so lack credibility. In other words
citizens will rely on their beliefs when they are unable to believe alternative
accounts.
To combat the
post-truth environment that nurtures fake news we propose four recommendations:
- Ensure the inclusion into education of a media literacy programme that can prepare people to be citizens of a digital world;
- Ensure that established media outlets adhere to the basic standards of journalism when constructing news;
- Put pressure on, through regulation if necessary, the major players in the digital environment to at a minimum accredit verified news providers;
- Challenge the use of the phrase fake news in order to create an environment that is more supportive of media.
As researchers with a
track record for investigating the role of media within society and its
importance for pluralist democracy, particularly given the rise of a
post-truth, spin culture, we propose that the concept of fake news –
terminologically and practically – is highly damaging. Our combined expertise
offers an informed appraisal of the nature of the problem, its potential
negative impacts but offer research-led solutions that can combat media
distrust and an attendant reliance on fake stories designed to manipulate.
Understanding fake news, the nature of the problem
and potential solutions
What is 'fake news'?
There
are at least four definitions of "fake news" in contemporary public
circulation:
1) Deliberate falsehoods to attract visitors as
clickbait;
2) Satirical news that is designed to be humorous and
overtly fake, and thus not intended to mislead as the first category is[1];
3) Public relations, spin or biased reporting which
exaggerates certain facts, obscuring others;
4) The dismissal of reports as fake by an individual
or organisation (such as Donald Trump or Emily Thornberry) because they present
a challenge to their own or their party’s narrative.
The
borders and boundaries between these four types are highly permeable. The
notion of fake news is not new per se, as the extensive literature around
propaganda and spin demonstrates; yet the problem is perhaps increasing and
certainly the term has gained traction after President Trump’s frequent usage.
Newspapers have a record for publishing stories with limited evidence and of
questionable veracity[2].
Public awareness of dubious practices including the use of the infamous ‘fake
sheikh’, the phone hacking scandal and various celebrities winning cases
against news organisations must contribute to the low public perception of
journalists; only 25% say they believe journalists tell the truth, a rating
shared with estate agents, although they beat government ministers and
politicians[3]. Arguably cynicism towards
the media has also been cultivated by the long-standing academic critique of
the media for their failures to ‘hold power to account’[4].
Media mistrust provides for an
environment where truth, and trustworthiness, is perceptual and where information
presented as fact is treated with cynicism: an environment characterised as
being ‘post-truth’ but one that might lead to a diminution of, or ‘death’, of
mainstream news[5].
The
current anxiety about "fake news" in the UK appears to have been sparked
in the aftermath of the Brexit vote and President Trump’s election in the US. In
some senses this anxiety can be understood as a moral panic or at least as a
crisis story about a much larger issue which is (in part) about fact-checking
in the digital age. Such anxieties have mounted, particularly as some forms of
"citizen journalism", "user generated content" and
"new model" news websites, from The Canary to Breitbart, challenge
the boundaries of the journalistic profession.
In
order to develop a broad definition we argue that fake news is the deliberate
spread of misinformation, be it via traditional news media or through social
media. Often such news is generated with the intent to mislead in order to gain
financially or politically[6].
In some cases fake news employs eye-catching headlines or entirely fabricated
news-stories in order to increase readership and online sharing. Profit is made
in a similar fashion to ‘clickbait’ which relies on revenue from advertisers generated
through clicks. People are encouraged to read or view a story in order to earn
revenue for the host organisation through clicks regardless of the veracity of
the published stories. Easy access to ad-revenue, increased political
polarization and the ubiquity of social media, primarily the Facebook newsfeed,
have been implicated in the spread of fake news. Anonymously hosted websites with
no known publishers have also been implicated, particularly because they make
it difficult to prosecute sources of fake news for libel or slander[7].
Yet
theoretically any individual or organisation can create fake news. Cultures of
spin and public relations, which accentuate positives and bury bad news, have
been pervasive within the political and corporate world over the last two
decades[8],
with many public institutions generating news items which are instantly
published with little editorial scrutiny[9].
While we might not wish to classify every piece of public relations, created by
a state, corporation, government, political party or campaign organisation as
fake news, there are key elements of public relations which elide with the
concept of fake news. Public relations practices produce news that is generated
in order to influence the reader, shape their attitudes and behaviours, and so
advantage the source; news outlets equally accentuate elements of stories in
order to fit an ideological bias. In both these cases there might be elements
of truth but exaggeration is used to cause an emotional response from the
reader. The ordinary citizen is therefore free to decide what to believe and
what to discount, but may not have the information or capacity to arrive at an
informed answer. In extremis they may also choose to ignore news they
understand to be fake or inaccurate, since their faith in the source is greater
than that who attacks them for being fake. Therefore, at the heart of the ‘fake
news’ problem is the challenge that is posed to democratic citizenship when
decisions are taken based upon emotional responses engendered by inaccurate
information.
Confirmation bias: why fake news gains traction
An
investigation by Craig Silverman and Lawrence Alexander found over 100 sites
purporting to provide news of US politics were in fact hosted by a number of individuals
residing within the Macedonian town of Veles. Each news site had a Facebook
page with thousands of followers[10].
The individuals creating these sites had experimented with content, discovering
pro-Trump news earned the most in click-thru revenue. These sites all provided
fake stories, ‘revealing’ proof Obama was not American, ‘providing’ exclusive
footage from Bill Clinton sex tapes and ‘quoting’ Hilary Clinton saying Trump
was ‘honest and can’t be bought’. Despite being untrue, they were read and
shared via the Facebook newsfeed, maybe appearing true to many readers.
Aside
from the eye-catching style of headlines, the stories also have plausibility to
their intended audience. Humans tend to seek information that fits with their
existing belief systems[11].
They like to hear negative news about people they do not like and vice versa.
The above stories confirmed anti-Obama and anti-Clinton biases, some particularly
reinforcing the ‘crooked Hillary’ narrative; others confirmed the honesty and
accuracy of Trump’s take on the world. Pro-Clinton or pro-Sanders narratives
gained were less attractive for clickbait sites, but they were no less
prevalent. This was echoed in another investigation by Silverman, exposing how
two opposing so-called ‘hyperpartisan’ news websites were both owned by the
same company[12]. Moreover, their news
copy was in places near identical – with adjectives and hyperbole adjusted to
suit the respective liberal or conservative audiences. Thus truth became
blurred and contested, a feature of many election campaigns.
In
a pluralist media system fake news is contested and challenged. However
research on media habits show that many people choose not to enjoy a pluralist diet of information. News sources
are chosen because they confirm existing biases and beliefs. This phenomenon is
particularly problematic within the online environment. Cass Sunstein observed
the construction of filter systems, whereby news feeds, sources of news and
information and online social networks becoming increasing homogenous
ideologically[13]. Put simply some people
are most likely to connect with peers or organisations with whom they agree
already, filtering out information that they disagree with or that challenges
their existing biases or beliefs. Moreover the majority of people who do not
use anti-tracking software, cookie data which allows websites such as Google
and Facebook to know what other sites are visited, what products are viewed
etc., are likely to have products and viewpoints tailored according to their
interests[14]. A person who scours
Amazon and LiveNation (a concert promoter) for heavy metal music, may only see
promotions for more heavy metal music; a person who likes pro-Trump news
stories may only see further pro-Trump news stories. The filter bubbles created
through algorithms based on online behavioural patterns may have even further
implications for those who seek out, read and like more extremist or
anti-democratic political views. There is conflicting evidence on how
hermetically sealed these filter bubbles created by social media users or
algorithms are, but arguably they can present significant problems even if the
majority of sources exposed to offer a one-sided narrative around a more
emotionally resonant message[15].
Confirmation
bias may not be seen as a huge problem, as it suggests that the only people
reached and affected are those with an existing propensity to believe a
particular story. However there are two important ramifications for democratic
society.
Firstly
there are degrees of bias. Having a latent bias against a particular social group
can be nurtured and made more extreme through exposure to fake news, due to the
emotive arguments made, particularly when similar peers share that news with
their own supportive, emotionally engaging, comment[16].
The more that peers support a given viewpoint or perspective, the more likely
an individual will absorb that into their belief system[17]
due to the emotional connection to the peers, their strength of feelings and
the perceived veracity of the argument. Greater exposure to fake news that
reinforces a particular set of beliefs is found to have a particularly powerful
impact on those who consume little ‘real’ news and rely heavily on information
discovered through their social networks[18].
Hence fake news can be a force for increased emotional and extreme attachments
to an idea, both of which can translate into extreme, emotionally-driven
behaviour.
Secondly
there are degrees of untruth. In 2016 it may not have mattered how many
Americans believed Obama was also an American citizen. An anonymously-produced
and widely-circulated map of incidents of crimes purportedly committed by
refugees in Germany may have far-reaching implications for the forthcoming
election in that nation. Despite this being contested by one independent online
website as being based on inaccurate data, and being hosted by a Russian
exponent of alt-right (the new far right) propaganda, Germany’s Bild newspaper and UK Daily Mail both used the map to attack
Merkel’s policy on refugees[19].
The map hosted by XYE, the challenge by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism,
or both could be fake[20].
Once in the public consciousness it is immaterial, German citizens with latent
concerns regarding absorbing a refugee community will become more concerned,
and possibly encouraged to vote a particular way; pro-refugee groups will be
forced to be refugee crime deniers; society becomes polarised over perceptions
of truth.
Contestations
of fact can therefore have important ramifications that go beyond questions of
how well-informed people are, they can also inform a range of behavioural
choices from how to vote to whether to participate in actions which exacerbate
social tensions; so explaining the rise of hate crimes. The impact of fake news
has already resulted in Edgar Welsh attempting to ‘do the right thing’ by
firing an assault rifle in a Washington Pizzeria believing the story that it
was the headquarters of a child-sex ring patronised by Clinton’s campaign chief
John Podesta; the evidence being that certain topping styles were code words.
One concerned citizen believed a fake news story sufficiently, and had
sufficient concern for the welfare of children, to take the law into their own
hands. While one extreme and isolated correlation between fake news and violent
action, the fact there were up to ten attacks against migrants in Germany
during 2016 may relate to the increase in anti-migrant news stories by domestic
and international alt-right groups[21].
It is therefore important to consider viable means by which to combat the
spread and acceptance of fake news.
Combating fake news
Critiques
of the media have proved vulnerable to appropriation. Donald Trump’s presidential
brand as the ‘outsider’ allows him to reinforce the perception that in the age of
social media electoral popularity
does not have to rest on support from a substantial section of mainstream
media. The term is becoming more widely popularised, not only by news sites
which claim ‘independence’, combat the alt-right, and expose ‘fake news’, but
by any politician who wishes to challenge the veracity of news reports[22].
While reactions to the term will vary across different audience segments, an
underlying and widespread effect is likely to be a still deeper and broader
suspicion of any ‘news’ sources which challenge the existing views of an
audience. Unchecked, this process will undermine the kind of public sphere – a
space for rational dialogue – on which democratic politics depends. The
collapse of a national public into a number of different and polarised
truth-tribes is becoming an imaginable scenario. Thus we propose four ways by
which this should be arrested.
Media Literacy
Firstly
we recommend a renewed focus on media literacy in schools, particularly around
emotional self-management and digital ‘emotional self-care’. While applied
mostly to the work of activists or researchers[23],
the ability to distance oneself emotionally from material online, personal or
political is important in constructing a better understanding of how to be a
good digital citizen. Simple lessons relating to thinking before liking or
sharing, how to avoid filter bubbles and understanding the threats posed by
exposure to information are required now from a young age. Media literacy also
needs to provide a basis for assessing the validity of sources, source bias,
the role of journalism in society and how to differentiate between different
forms of journalism: investigative, editorial or propagandistic. These are
issues that predate and transcend fake news, but are no less important because
of that.
Media standards
Media
literacy must also work in tandem with better regulation of the standards of
news production and the pluralism of views. A starting point would be admission
that the phenomenon of fake news has its roots in mainstream media failure.
Issues of partisanship and bias, ethical standards in journalism, and unhealthy
levels of ownership concentration have created an environment in which trust in
journalists is at an all-time low. The concern here is that well documented and
long-term public distrust in sections of the news media (typically tabloid
journalists in the UK) will become contagious, and citizens will begin to see
all of their news as of questionable veracity (which Trump is actively
encouraging in the US); an environment
in which real and fake become indistinguishable. It is therefore incumbent on
our news media to raise journalistic standards and to reform. But reform is
something the newspaper press has for decades proven itself incapable of, and
thus the onus on leading this process must lie with government. Therefore the
implementation of the recommendations of the Leveson enquiry remains crucial. Implementation
would help improve ethical standards of journalism, yet ownership concentration
remains a problem, and regulation should be pursued that prevents monopoly
ownership of news organisations which make them susceptible to disseminating a
single ideological argument.
Regulating the digital environment
The
response by Facebook to criticisms, the creation of a Journalism Project[24],
may be seen as a small step in the right direction, in particular the pledge to
collaborate with news corporations in order to produce a newsfeed that cannot
be contaminated by less credible sources. However this does not prevent fake news
outlets creating spaces within social media platforms, creating attractive fake
news headlines, and encourage sharing of this content. At a minimum political
pressure should be put upon on social media platforms to strengthen their
actions in relation to combating hate speech, a component of some fake news.
Platforms are currently struggling to deal with content that is reported as
inappropriate[25], therefore this might
present challenges despite the German government attempts to sanction Facebook
if they do not comply. Perhaps a better solution, however, is stronger
regulation of how news outlets are labelled (consider variations to the
verified tick on Twitter). If they do not comply with recognised standards of
journalism they must be classed as political, not news.
Creating an environment that supports media.
The
above can go some way to ensuring citizens are able to make mature and
reality-based judgments of who to trust while not being exposed to manipulation
online. The final recommendation focuses on political actors. The argument
being that they should always offer evidence and analysis based arguments, not
simply negating arguments as fake if they do not agree or when reports
challenge their narrative, and citizens need to be encouraged to judge their
arguments on that basis. Moreover, the mainstream news media must be openly
supported, by politicians and all other potential opinion-leaders, therefore retaining
its position at the heart of democratic culture. The media cannot be protected
from criticism, as there are significant problems with media production of fake
news; however criticisms of news coverage should avoid using the phrase ‘fake
news’ in a tit-for-tat fashion. Challenges to news must also be challenged, for
their evidence base and their veracity, in order that citizens do not just seek
validity through confirmation bias but can employ more informed judgment.
[1]
Comedy shows such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (TDS) and The Colbert
Report (TCR) have been referred to as “fake news” in the past, since they
satirise news bulletins and indeed current affairs. Others include The Onion in
the US, and News Thump or The Daily Mash in the UK.
[2]
Independent academic studies include Martin Conboy, (2006). Tabloid Britain, Routledge or Kevin
Williams, (2009). Get Me a Murder a Day!:
A History of Media and Communication in Britain. A&C Black.
[4]
Fore example see James Curran & Jean Seaton, (2009). Power without responsibility: press, broadcasting and the internet in
Britain. Routledge.
[6]
Elle Hunt, (December 17, 2016).
"What is fake news? How to spot it and what you can do to stop it". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.
[7]
Jack Shafer, (22 November 2016).
"The Cure for Fake News Is Worse Than the Disease". Politico. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/the-cure-for-fake-news-is-worse-than-the-disease-214477
[8]
Aeron Davis, (2002). Public relations
democracy: Politics, public relations and the mass media in Britain.
Manchester University Press. Kevin Moloney, (2006). Rethinking public relations: PR, propaganda and democracy.
Routledge.
[9]
Justin Lewis, Andrew Williams & Bob Franklin, (2008). A compromised fourth
estate? UK news journalism, public relations and news sources. Journalism studies, 9(1), 1-20. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616700701767974
[11]
Philip E. Converse, (1962). The nature of
belief systems in mass publics. Ann Arbor Press.
[12]
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-the-hyperpartisan-sausage-is-made?utm_term=.poV3enQ2M#.imye4DqNQ
[13]
Cass Sunstein, (2009). Republic. com 2.0.
Princeton University Press.
[15]
For an alternative perspective see Margetts et al’s research https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/of-course-social-media-is-transforming-politics-but-it-s-not-to-blame-for-brexit-and-trump
or the recent Reuters’ study https://rasmuskleisnielsen.net/2016/11/25/is-social-media-use-associated-with-more-or-less-diverse-news-use/
[17]
Elsie M. Botha, (2014). Contagious Communications: The role of emotion in viral
marketing (Doctoral dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology). https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:745835/FULLTEXT01.pdf
[18]
Meital Balmas, (2014). When Fake News Becomes Real: Combined Exposure to
Multiple News Sources and Political Attitudes of Inefficacy, Alienation, and
Cynicism. Communication Research,
41(3), 430-454.
[20]
There are a plethora of sites which claim to combat fake news, for example http://www.stopfake.org/en/news/
which have not more claim to veracity and credibility than the sites they
attack exacerbating the polarisation of online discourse.
[21]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39096833
[23]
https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/ch-ramsden/self-care-in-digital-space
