Fake news - don't believe the experts

The Pope backs a Trump presidency. Even for those who don’t pay close attention to what Pope Francis says, either on Twitter or elsewhere, it’s unlikely given many of the statements the now President-elect Trump made during the campaign that the Pontiff would have expressed such an endorsement. However, this of course is what happened. Whether people saw it through Facebook or on other forms of social media, it is estimated around 30 million Americans saw this headline. Even when the Vatican was forced to deny the claim, the response was supposedly only seen by around 10 per cent of the original story. Facts have all of a sudden become blurred and it’s becoming exceptionally difficult to persuade people on the truth otherwise.

We’ve all become aware of the so-called ‘post-truth’ world where facts are subordinate to emotions. Michael Gove famously said during the EU referendum campaign that people were fed up of listening to experts. Even when the Bank of England, OECD and the Government were telling voters that they were better off than before the economic downturn of 2008, a lot of people simply assessed their own lives rather than the numbers to make their own judgement. Opinions often hold stronger political capital than the facts and arguably, since the economic crash, who can blame them.

People could argue that ‘fake news’ has always existed. If a football team loses, how often have we heard the losing manager blame the officials to set a different news agenda? In the real world, to what extent are companies, newspapers or politicians using spin, contriving their story to suit an agenda of their own? They all do, however, these examples are all accountable in some shape or form. Companies to their shareholders and customers, newspapers to their readers and the law and government ultimately to the electorate and Parliament.

There is nothing wrong with people seeking opinions on issues that matter to them most or suit their own political feelings. Just as someone with intentions to vote for the Conservative Party are more than likely to read the Daily Telegraph or read a blog such as Conservative Home, a Manchester United fan is unlikely to be regularly reading Leeds United fan forums. Opinions are underpinned by ideologies and healthy debate, but they aren’t immune to scrutiny and facts.   

The growth in social media and blogs has changed all that. Politicians and sportspeople share their news, observations and experiences online. When Sir Bradley Wiggins retired recently, he did it to his 100,000 Facebook followers. Given some of the accusations being thrown at him and Team Sky of late, surely you’re better telling fans who have followed your career online than to the BBC Sports Editor who may be more interested in newsworthy events. Certainly, there’ll be a handful who are likely to throw a few strong words at you, but they’re a small minority. They’re ultimately in control.

The real concern is that with more people now getting their news from social media, to what extent does this withstand the scrutiny of more traditional forms of media? Naturally people tend to migrate to environments where people share their own views. The so-called echo-chambers mean that people often become immune to criticism or the opposing view. Supporters of Jeremy Corbyn spring to mind, why should they listen to the likes of the mainstream media if they’re bias and puppets of capitalism. Nor do they appear to listen to some of the facts or responses from opinion polls and focus groups.

However, as Gove and Trump suggest. Why should you listen to these facts that suit your own argument? Ever since the Brexit vote, every time a new piece of economic data has been released showing increasing business and consumer confidence and economic growth, the media outlets that championed a Leave vote have been quick to highlight how wrong the Remain camp were. It may just be a case that it’s not that people are fed up of listening to experts, it’s that the experts haven’t always been right in the first place so I’ll take their view with a  pinch of salt.

Fake news is part of this broader narrative. People have a distrust of traditional forms of media and they’re no longer willing to sit and watch evening news bulletins or simply turn the obvious places for their news. They’re looking at Facebook and sharing links from organisations where the rigours and scrutiny of a newsroom are certainly not as strong. They’ll share videos of political speeches that neglect to provide the other side of the argument or simply push the most alarming of facts that are likely to lead more people to share this. For those creating the content, why wouldn’t you? In a matter of days, you have the potential of getting millions of people through to your website. Think of all the advertising revenue you could make. Additionally, if I’m Donald Trump and I tweet something, it’s going to be seen by millions of people online. It’s also going to be reported by traditional news outlets, another opportunity to ignore some the facts.

There is no simple way to change this overnight. Part of the problem in America may be that public sector broadcasting is not as strong as say the BBC. A real look needs to be taken by the looks of Facebook over editorial being shared. The solution will be among the traditional news organisations working with social media. This isn’t and shouldn’t be a way of inhibiting free speech, but it should be a way of highlighting overtly when facts are disputed. 

Foreign News: Where-istan?

Foreign news is a strange thing, particularly for a British audience. It is surprising the amount of news stories that go untraced as they are not deemed newsworthy. If there is no relationship or historical context, then it is unlikely to see the light of day. If it does not feature a protagonist who doesn’t mirror our perceived stereotypes, then it isn’t even worth covering. If it involves a country we’ve never knew existed, then it’s more than likely we don’t even care.

We are all guilty at jumping to conclusions, particularly when events strike. The protests that have paralysed much of France only assert our previous conclusions about our Gallic neighbours and what about Chile? If we ignore the miners and the earthquake earlier this year, we tend to think of General Pinochet and his odious regime. To an extent, the media is not entirely to blame, there are plenty of other resources dedicated to different regions in the world but ultimately we tend to ignore them. A news organisation cannot necessarily win because the expense of running such a bureau often means that in certain places several correspondents are forced to cover an entire continent on a shoestring budget; foreign news is a delicacy to any newshound.

Another problem is justification; we get a bigger share of foreign news from America because (if you ignore the obvious cultural ties) more things happen there. Yet, even despite this coverage it is perfectly reasonable to accept that most Brits, nor Europeans really understand what the average American citizen thinks. This is perhaps where cultural values can blur and national identities become prevalent. The paper press do this, but even the television media.

There are forthcoming elections in Burma this November, yet we will only hear observations on the absence of pro-democracy campaigner Aung Sang Sui Chi, not the splits in her party or the ethnic tensions surrounding it. Last year in Sri Lanka, the British media focussed purely on the fate of the Tamil people, it entirely neglected the years of suffering inflicted on the Sinhalese population. Why do we have a fondness to follow the devious and megalomaniac regime of Robert Mugabe, yet we ignored the bloody conflict that killed millions in the DR Congo. There is a case of subjectivism and some stories do not warrant nor require the gaze as others but it does put a question on news values as a whole. Unfortunately, humanitarian stories, particularly natural disasters, receive wider coverage and dedication than stories that have been progressing for years. We were all aware of the Haiti Earthquake, yet there is little to show on famine in the Central African Republic or even in Palestine? Yet, starving Africans or trouble in the Middle East is hardly anything new. They are stories that lack hope or renew interest from a day-to-day basis, so maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.

The internet and global communications have completely changed boundaries and increased the capacity to react to events in an age of 24 hour news. Yet, editorial judgement, public perceptions and short term analysis has created an environment where news operates to fill time space and any closer scrutiny serves to reiterate historical stereotypes and recover little further. Perhaps it’s a post-colonial come down or just the fact we’ve grown accustomed to being a top dog.