The phrase and phenomenon of “fake news” first burst into American culture during a press conference in 2016 where then President-elect Donald Trump called CNN “fake news” and refused to take their reporter’s question. Since then, other media stories and publishers have been labeled as fake news by the president and others. While misinformation and news distorted with bias have always been around, The Telegraph’s head of social media, James Carson, credits the Internet with helping fake news explode for diminishing the cost of news, expanding the amount of information available, and making it nearly impossible for all news to be regulated.
The publication of misinformation surely has its effects as seen in the presidential election. During the campaign, Trump continuously encouraged distrust of his opponents thus encouraging his supporters to distrust them as well. Consequently, much of the fake news that was produced supported him. While it is impossible to credit Trump’s presidential victory to one factor, it is hard to argue that headlines such as “FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead” didn’t play a significant role in the final outcome.
Many people on all ends of the political spectrum are frustrated about the plethora and availability of false information on the web. A war against misinformation has sprung and in spring of 2017, California became the first state to make an attempt to bear arms against the misleading giant. In the California Assembly, legislation has been written up to punish Californians' who knowingly write, publish, and even share information that is false about an issue that will be voted upon by the public or a candidate that is running for office. This bill in its intent to stop the spreading of false information will actually hurt California and the rest of the country. Fake news is, and should continue to be, protected as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Publishers and the media have no responsibility to give people the truth; these platforms simply give us information.
To determine if that information is true or not is the responsibility of the reader. Once the reader accepts that responsibility, Americans will then become better overall as questioning publications, credibility, and sources become the norm and one can no longer give information without giving a source and being questioned about where they got the news from. This helps Americans become better watchdogs on the media. Forbes magazine contributor, Jay Mcgregor, lists that one benefit of fake news is that journalism will be saved as “journalists are terrified of being called out for inaccuracies for fear of the fake news labels and taunts on Twitter." Being aware that America is looking for a reason to disbelieve a story keeps the media on their A-game. Publications are more likely to have credible sources if they know people are checking.
Any kind of restriction the law attempts to take on fake news will consequently restrict the potential of the American people and the American media. Also, any type of restriction would be blurry and unconstitutional due to the nature of fake news. Trying to define “the truth” and “fake news” is extremely difficult and impossible as “the truth” looks a little different to everyone. In a case of he said-she said, saying one or the other is false would be highly debatable and controversial.
When it comes to political news, the term “fake news” and the application of any kind of restrictive law would become like a political scepter-whoever is in charge determines what is fake and real. A party is more likely to attack false information against them, but less likely to go after one that supports them. In such situations, the blurred line of real and fake becomes even more dangerous. If a story is published that shows Republicans in a good light, and Democrats cry “fake news,” but Republicans insist it is true; party lines are drawn and no real information is being discussed.
More blurred lines arise between fake, biased, and inaccurate news. A news story that only shows some facts but not others due to their bias or their audience is not fake, but someone who has an opposite bias might label it as fake news. In cases such as the Buzzfeed scandal in early 2017 where the platform published a story that was unconfirmed, it would be very arguable on what category of news-fake, biased, true, inaccurate, etc- it should be labeled as such. The biases, also, of those who read the story would largely play into what they deem the story as (and how the publisher should be punished if there was a law). No matter how one tries to define “fake news”, there is no non-debatable definition and trying to find one would be a waste of time because information-whether true or fake by whoever's' standards-needs to be available to the American public, so that they can make up their own minds on the truth and that the voice of the press and anyone who publishes their voice online is not restricted.
