Fake news implies intent to deceive

False information does not amount to fake news.

“Fake” means forgery, counterfeit—something intentionally fabricated from other stuff to look like the authentic one and thus deceive people. Every day though, throughout the world, we encounter many news items which are proven false but with no intent to deceive. News sources and informants, reporters, and editors may make honest mistakes due to various factors, too many to list here.

The crucial dividing line that exposes intent, I think, is this: when a news item is proven to be false, an intentional faker will either defend his exposed fabrication and make excuses by weaving more lies, or simply fade away while his less-exposed cooperators continue the misinformation in other ways. A responsible news source, on the other hand, will promptly double-check and verify, then publish an erratum and apology, and finally, take extra steps such as giving more prominence (if not additional depth) to the corrected story.

It’s not a black-and-white question. There are gray areas in this.

Once a false story is exposed, some news sources that have fallen for it may not be responsible enough. They will remain silent or quietly retract the story, and probably impose disciplinary action on their erring staff, but not take extra steps to undo the damage done. They may justify their move by saying that they were merely reprinting reports from wires, had no capacity to double-check, and constrained by limited finances, meanwhile failing to reform their internal systems.

This is treading on dangerous ground, because fabricators of fake news will most often use such irresponsible or mediocre news conduits to spread their poison. Even after the true story is revealed, the false version may continue to spread and do further damage. The irresponsible or mediocre news conduits will fall for other false stories, again and again.

Another gray area is when the proof of a news item’s veracity or falsity remains weak and difficult to establish. Sometimes it so happens that a dispute on facts reveals a more complex story, where one or several sides have an interest in preventing all the facts from reaching the public.

The dispute may become a legal one subject to court proceedings, or a policy debate involving diplomatic or national-security issues, or part of the foggy propaganda war between two military adversaries. Just consider how journalists can deftly negotiate the info-war traps between the US and Russia in the Syrian conflict. It becomes so convenient for each side to accuse each other’s (perhaps over-patriotic) media of trafficking in fake news, or at least being over-selective in which facts to highlight.

It is often said that “journalism is history in a hurry.” But in this era of infographics and viral memes and three-second soundbytes, journalism can be too much in a hurry it soon falls flat on its face. For journalists to wear more often the historian’s hat, sifting through the bits and piecing the big picture more scientifically, is good advice.

A third gray area is the popular literary device of satire, especially in the form of parody. Satire and parody are legitimate genre. But if done super-realistically, a parody can also have the unintended effect of gullible people believing it as the real thing and then spreading it like wildfire to still more gullible people.

How many of us have read, and at least initially fell for, that infamous “Harvard study” on the extreme gullibility of Filipinos? The original story was a parody, not a piece of fake news. But veteran journalist Carmen Pedrosa took the story seriously. When Timothy James Dimacali of GMA News Online pointed out her misstep in a corrective article, she casually explained it away.

Was Ms. Pedrosa trafficking in fake news? You tell me. But if a journalist repurposes parody as authentic news and treats it as such, the question of intent becomes blurred. They open themselves to the accusation of – wittingly or unwittingly – turning the item into fake news.

Again: It is often difficult enough, even among honest journalists, to prove the truth or falsity behind a supposed news fact. But to prove malicious intent in creating or spreading false news is even more difficult. I’m no lawyer, but I do know the challenge of proving murder as against mere homicide (manslaughter in many US jurisdictions).

Thus, if you accuse someone of trafficking in fake news, you must be ready to prove intent. #

Leave a Reply