Here's an idea.
Just because news is bad, that doesn't mean that it's fake.
There's been all kinds of talk recently about fake news,
by which people normally mean incorrect or invented
information, unsourced claims, or patently outlandish
assertions, often aimed at stirring the political doo-doo.
Fake news is even thought to have played a meaningful part
in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
Fake news has become such a topic of discussion
that many sources have put together
resources for spotting it.
"The Guardian" did a piece in December.
"Cyborgology" talked about fake news and the aesthetics
of objectivity in January.
"On the Media" drafted a breaking news consumer
handbook, fake news edition.
And I recommend them all.
Sources in the doobly-doo.
They've certainly helped me in the new news media landscape.
We are going to do something different.
We're not going to talk about how to spot fake news.
We're going to talk about how not to spot
fake news-- about how certain news items can seem suspect,
but not all blemishes make their stories necessarily fake.
Fake news-- fully fabricated and false news-- isn't the only way
that news can be bad or troublesome.
And because a story is bad or troublesome,
that doesn't make it fake.
By unquestioningly dismissing it as such,
you may be doing yourself a disservice as a concerned
citizen hoping to stay informed.
And we're going to talk about what
isn't fake news by using Noam Chomsky and Edward S.
Herman's book "Manufacturing Consent" as our guide.
If you're unfamiliar, these gents
argue that news media can function in subtle, even
unmeaning, ways to get people to agree with the news
source and one another on the issues of the day
and on political and economic positions
which largely benefit the powerful.
They call this ability the news media's propaganda function.
And they claim that it's built into the very structure
of media itself, even media which
you'd never point at and go, hey, that's a propaganda.
Hold your news horses, though.
There's an important distinction here between propaganda
function and propaganda.
Lots of fake news is, in fact, literal propaganda--
misleading information used to promote a political viewpoint.
Real, true, true news that reports on facts
may function in a way like propaganda
but still itself not be propaganda
as such, in that it does have a basis in observable fact.
And that is where lots of confusion arises
and where we get people calling verifiable stories
reported by major news outlets, fake news
when, in fact, it's legit news those people simply
disagree with or which has maybe lost its way a little.
So we're going to spend this episode talking about what
Chomsky and Hermann call the five filters that news must
pass through to be made and how those effects
the creation of even real news.
We're going to use these filters to help us identify
the propaganda function of news while considering
how they don't necessarily make that news fake.
The first filter has to do with the size of media organizations
and why they make media in the first place.
News companies are huge with massive budgets.
And often, they're subsidiaries of even larger conglomerates.
And those conglomerates want to make bank.
This means two things.
First, news orgs probably won't publish stories that talk bad
about their own conglomerates.
And as media gets increasingly consolidated,
the number of off-limit subjects would likely
grow, including even capitalism itself.
You know what they say--
don't bite the hand that writes the fatty paychecks.
Second, the consolidation also means
the little guy can't break into the industry
and provide meaningful competition.
The internet does provide a voice
to individuals and small organizations.
But for the most part, this is different in size, reach,
and authority than the established news media.
Normally, massive corporations are
the ones who guide the national conversation.
Fake news has, in fact, challenged the second half
of this first filter by taking advantage of algorithmic news
aggregation.
We did an episode about that.
Fake news swayed public opinion to the degree
that we now have to make this episode about that.
But on the first point, because news
is produced by a corporation doesn't automatically
make it fake or false.
Corporate relationships often mean
a news organization is quiet on certain topics or cagey
on others.
But for better and worse, it is often
the resources available only to large corporate news that
results in the realest form of journalism-- access
to politicians, expert sources, time and money
to research, dig, and verify.
Ideally, all newsmakers are very clearly
disclosing financial relationships
and potential conflicts of interest.
This is not always the case.
But in the way the use of a fallacy
doesn't necessarily make an argument wrong,
corporate structures don't necessarily
mean a story is false or an outlet is fake.
Most commercial news sources must sell advertising space
around their work to stay in business.
This means that advertiser happiness
is essential to the survival of a media company.
And getting involved in political or social
controversies, taking any kind of editorial risk,
could threaten the good cheer and therefore
generosity of one's advertisers.
And the stakes are high.
Chomsky and Herman note that a 1% TV audience
drop equals a loss of $80 to $100 million in 1988.
Ideally, ad sales and editorial are totally isolated.
But that's easier said than done.
So publishers find a happy editorial medium where
news is useful, keeps audiences coming back,
and advertisers grinning.
If the reporting is stale, sad, or sensitive,
even if it's important, there's a chance
that the budget suffers.
Interestingly, fake news tends to be
more ad-supported than your standard legit news
publisher who also benefits from grants, subsidies,
or subscriptions.
"On the Media" points out that most fake news websites are
slathered in ads since other revenue opportunities
are out of reach.
So it may be a question of degree.
But simply because there are ads present
doesn't mean a story has been bought and paid
for by commercial interests, though it
can have an impact on the kinds of stories that are run.
And additionally, it's a sign of the unfortunate requirements
of reporting what is literally the case under capitalism.
No matter how large the media company,
you can't be everywhere all the time
or have expertise on everything going down.
So newsmakers need sources--
civilians, governments, organizations,
and experts, all of whom have their own perspectives
and agendas.
And what's worse, publicly challenging those sources,
and even refusing them, can jeopardize future access.
So it's often in the interest of even legit newsmakers
to report what they're told and how they're
told without asking too many questions or causing trouble
so they'll continue being told anything at all in the future.
This is unfortunate and complicated.
Ideally, for instance, a major news publisher
would be able to call out a source on a falsehood
without fear of jeopardizing access or their own existence.
But the ineffective handling of squirrelly sources
by legit news is different from fake news, which
often has no sources, a single, unverified source,
uses itself or the feelings and assumptions of the author
as a source without marking the piece's opinion,
or uses outdated, disproven, or suspicious sources, including
other fake news outlets.
It's a good rule of thumb to always
cross-reference the sources of news story,
no matter where it's from.
With fake news, often there's nothing or very
little to even cross-reference.
Filter 4 is called flak.
Flak is the negative response newsmakers
endure for covering a particular issue-- letters of complaint,
petitions, lawsuits, and of course, Tweets,
Facebook posts, YouTube comments,
and 45-minute-long response videos.
Chomsky and Herman point out that lobbies
used to produce the worst flak.
Today, flak is largely the result
of individuals brigading on the wings
of their righteous outrage.
Organizations, people, and communities
form what Chomky and Herman call flak machines,
generating so much negative PR around a story
that they bury the reporting under mountains
of distracting vitriol.
This often happens, they say, when newsmakers
question the status quo.
Flak is one way for those with enough power
to convene a flak machine to maintain their power.
One of the central responsibilities of journalism
is reporting unfavorably on those
in positions of authority.
And that has consequences which sometimes even legit news
outlets will be fearful of.
But if people are upset about a story, that doesn't mean
it's false.
And as a matter of fact, it can mean exactly the opposite.
An inconvenient truth may convene a flak machine
more quickly and violently than a falsehood.
Still, you should always be deeply suspicious of stories
that thrive on anger or align exactly with your frustrations
and fears about the world.
Be mindful of the difference between being
mad at a piece of reporting and being mad
with a piece of reporting.
Fake news is often part of the flak machine itself.
Our fifth and final filter is called anti-communism.
"Manufacturing Consent" was written in 1988
during the end of the Cold War, so communism was the threat
keeping everyone up at night.
In the updated edition, Chomsky and Herman
refer simply to "fear of the other."
Media has the power to label any group as outsiders,
thus making the public afraid of that group.
And as Chomsky wrote, when the public is afraid,
they accept authority, to keep up
with the news, which is telling them
everything they need to know about how totally boned
they are--
sort of like media Stockholm Syndrome.
Unfortunately, both legit and fake news
rely on fear to keep people glued to their screens
and therefore generating revenue.
While you'd hope the difference would be a matter of degree,
even legit journalists can get carried away
stoking the flames of fear and aren't
reeled in by their producers or editors.
Like with flak, you should be skeptical of any story
or publisher which consistently makes you
feel more afraid than informed.
It may not be fake--
both real and fake news reflects the tensions and biases
of their moment--
but in my opinion, neither is it worth your time or money.
The ideal goals of journalism are
to challenge, inform, and hold accountable,
not to pander, enrage, or exacerbate.
Staying vigilant in spotting fake news
is important-- more important than it's
been in the recent past, especially when it
comes to political news.
However, vigilance over fake news
shouldn't replace vigilance over the real news
or encourage us to conflate the two.
Factual reporting can and usually is
filtered through corporations, advertisers, sources,
audiences, and even fear itself.
So we should be doubly prepared, ready to refuse the fake
and hold accountable the true.
There will be no comment response video for this video.
But if you want to let us know how you do and do
not spot fake news in the comments below, we'll be there.
In this week's comment response video,
we talk about your thoughts regarding the hoodie.
If you want to watch that one, you
can find a link in the description
or wait for the end card to show up.
Idea Channel has a Patreon.
Thank you so much to all of our current patrons
for their support.
If you want to help the show, you can head over
to patreon.com/pbsideachnnel.
We also have a Facebook, and irc, and a sub-Reddit.
The Tweet of the week comes from [INAUDIBLE]
who points us towards a parody Zizek [INAUDIBLE] review
of that new Taco Bell food item that is the fried chicken taco.
It gets real good, real quick, especially
if you like laughing at Zizek, which you know, we do.
And last but certainly not least,
this week's episode would not have been possible or good
without the very hard work of this well-oiled flak machine.
Oh, one more thing before we go.
I'm here with Anna from "Gross Science," which
is a PBS Digital Studio show that's
about the squishy, gross, grotesque side of science.
And I was wondering if you could just tell us really quick,
what makes something gross?
So that's a really good question.
And I think that things that are gross
are things that remind us that we're
no different than animals.
And I think that's unsettling, because it reminds us
that we are mortal and can die.
So you see the parts of your body
that remind you that you're just a meat thing.
Yeah, that you are a bag of flesh and liquids
and some bones.
And it's all very fragile.
So if you would like constant reminders
that you are a bag of liquid and flesh and bones,
you definitely have to check out "Gross Science."
Thanks, Mike.