Fake news is false or misleading information presented as news but slanted to fool readers into thinking it’s for real. Fake news includes fabricated content (stories made up to mislead people), deceptive headlines (stories with truthful content but exaggerated or deceiving headlines), satire or parody (articles intended as jokes or satire but mistaken by readers as legitimate news), propaganda (biased or misleading information to promote a political agenda), and manipulated media (images, videos, or audio edited or altered to misrepresent reality).
Fake news is not new, but bogus stories now reach more people more quickly through social media – Facebook, X, Tik Tok, WhatsApp, Instagram – than old-fashion e-mail ever could.
Since the mid-1990s, the web site Snopes.com has been exposing false claims, fabricated messages, distortions containing bits of truth, and everything in between. But its founder David Mikkelson cautions us not to lump everything into the fake news category. “The fictions and fabrications that comprise fake news are but a subset of the larger bad news phenomenon, which also encompasses many forms of shoddy, unresearched, error-filled, and deliberately misleading reporting that do a disservice to everyone,” he warns.
Much has been written about the growing disregard for facts, data, and analysis in political and civil discourse in the U.S. and around the world. For example, the RAND Corporation’s report, Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life, explains that “Increasingly, it seems that important policy debates, both within the federal government and across the electorate, are as likely to hinge on opinion or anecdote as they are on objective facts or rigorous analysis. However, policy decisions made primarily on the basis of opinion or anecdote can have deleterious effects on American democracy and might impose significant costs on the public.”
Which brings us to the death of expertise. Tom Nichols, a professor at the Naval War College at the Harvard Extension School, and who once worked for Republican Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, published an article in the Federalist (a conservative on-line magazine) and a book titled The Death of Expertise. In them, Nichols condemns what he describes as the many forces trying to undermine the authority of experts in the U.S. “Today, any assertion of expertise produces an explosion of anger from certain quarters of the American public, who immediately complain that such claims are nothing more than fallacious ‘appeals to authority,’ sure signs of dreadful ‘elitism,’ and an obvious effort to use credentials to stifle the dialogue required by a ‘real’ democracy.” Democracy, he insists, is a system of government, not an actual state of equality, which means we enjoy equal rights in regard to the government and in relation to each other. Having equal rights does not mean having equal talents, equal abilities, or equal knowledge. “It assuredly does not mean that ‘everyone’s opinion about anything is as good as anyone else’s.’ And yet, this is now enshrined as the credo of a fair number of people despite being obvious nonsense.” He blames the internet and the explosion of social media for the anti-expertise and anti-intellectual sentiment.
Is this the new normal? Can anyone post anything they want under any anonymous alias and never have to defend their sources? Do we no longer recognize the difference between laymen and experts?
Most important, can truth survive another four years of Trump? His disregard for facts and for truth poses a clear and present danger for our democracy.
Mark Berg is a community activist in Adams County and a proud Liberal. His email address is MABerg175@Comcast.net.
Mark Berg is a community activist in Adams County and a proud Liberal. His email address is MABerg175@Comcast.net.
Thank you Mark! You hit the nail on the head with this one. My concern, certainly in response to some commenters here, is the deliberate lies. Not comments that can be interpreted, but outright lies and untruths that are told only to confuse and mislead people. The guy getting inaugurated tomorrow is the best example of a convicted, patheological liar the likes of which this country has never seen in public office.
So lies told for reasons besides just to confuse and mislead are acceptable? Because one could argue that a great many of them have been told, and accepted as gospel. The point is that because there is no universal arbiter of what is 100% true (unless you know of one), we have an obligation to consider alternate points of view. Even from people you don’t like/approve of. If it’s a lie, it’s a lie. Let it be said, and shine the light of truth on it. Often there is a smidgen of truth or some bit of insightful knowledge that… Read more »
Thank you Mark Berg, for your very informative article. This is a very concerning trend in our society, and it’s helpful to look at it.
Gosh Berg, you gave the perfect example of “Yellow Journalism” with your statement, “Most important, can truth survive another four years of Trump? His disregard for facts and for truth poses a clear and present danger for our democracy.” Let’s hope truth can be revived after the last four years. In case you are not aware of what Yellow Journalism is: journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration.
Just curious Mr. Berg, when the actual truth comes out, will you accept it? Truth and fact have no political affiliation and doesn’t align with any one viewpoint. I agree with Barb that you must use your own mental muscle rather than just falling in line and doing as you’re told.
I welcome another 4 years of America first rather than selling out to global interest.
God Bless America!
This commentary sounds similar to the mantra, ‘just trust the science’. I don’t believe it’s an issue with trusting the science or believing the expert, but rather, it arises from being told that one MUST accept the conclusion of the day; that any question, or alternate viewpoint, or desire to debate or add new information, is automatically rejected out of hand as nonsense, fictions, or deceptive, misleading information. I believe it’s better to strengthen the mental muscle by having it do the work of discerning good information from bad, learning to seek and identify quality arguments leading to reasonable and… Read more »
Thank you Mark Berg. This is an excellent and timely piece. Critical thinking skills are not taught as part of standard education leaving much of the populace uneducated about thinking skills and decision making. Social media has made it too easy to “dumb down” and not search for facts. Also when half of our nation thinks it is just fine to elect a pathological liar to the highest office in the land, then we know our country is also declining in ethics and moral values.
Mr. Berg’s commentary appears to encourage less critical thinking by blanket acceptance of the opinion of an expert. Shouldn’t we be encouraging the opposite?
You yourself say that social media has dumbed us down (and I don’t necessarily disagree with you), but when questions are raised and alternate viewpoints expressed, shouldn’t we be using those as opportunities to apply critical thinking; to find new information; to debate the conclusions; to sharpen our understanding?
Simply accepting the experts’ opinion, in the instance you agree with them, may work out sometimes, but is it really always finding truth?