We are living in a world where having unlimited access to digital information has proven to be revolutionary and frightening. Technology has granted us the luxury of having convenient sources of news at our fingertips at a moment’s notice. Almost anyone can become a journalist online and share their views on current events now. The result is an influx of bias reporting and, more dangerously, misinformation regarding the facts. Reputable sources always have and will continue to exist, but distinguishing between authentic and fake news has become increasingly difficult. What’s worse, social media platforms have become a main source of political news, which at times can be heavily biased, manipulative, or just plain false. Exposure to misinformation after a prolonged amount of time has led many people to question the relevancy of truth even from the most viable sources. Our current political state has proven how dangerous it can be when false reporting influences reader’s opinions on sensitive matters.
Uncovering the truth today becomes more important than ever because failure to do so results in a misguided and desensitized population. Unfortunately, this has already surfaced in many instances that have been potentially dangerous. A noteworthy example is the Pizzagate incident, where an armed man, under the false impression that Hillary Clinton was responsible for a pedophilia ring at the restaurant, took matters into his own hands and attempted to harm bystanders. The information originated on 4chan and Reddit message boards, neither of which had reputable sources to confirm the allegations. Reporters on the incident stated, “The bizarre and unfounded theory has been spread online by right-wing blogs such as Infowars, which is run by Donald Trump supporter Alex Jones” (BBC News). Nobody was harmed during the event, but the toxicity of the matter only reinforces the danger involved with the spread of fake news.
While not every case of interpreting this type of false reporting ends in violence, there is still an internal struggle with grasping the truth. Even with powerful tools of online evaluation, many readers still doubt if anything reported on is factual at all. At best, readers have become steadfast in their opinions that there is little to no tolerance for an opposing argument. While many can argue that bias is always present even in the most factual stories, it is important to create a fair platform for opposing sides to interpret the results. In many cases, debaters will shrug off the truth in favor of their standpoint because the fake news story is tailored more to their liking. Sabrina Tavernise for the New York Times addresses this issue in an article about accepting fake news as fact. She claims, “Fake news, and the proliferation of raw opinion that passes for news, is creating confusion, punching holes in what is true, causing a kind of fun-house effect that leaves the reader doubting everything, including real news” (Tavernise). In an interview with Larry Laughlin, a retired business owner, Tavernise questions him on the nature of his news gathering. Even if the story is false, Laughlin claims he “just likes the satisfaction” in reading them, as if falsehood is its own form of entertainment (Tavernise).
Digesting news stories from social media has also caused a dilemma in untruthful information. It is commonplace for many readers to see stories unfold through Facebook or Twitter, often shared by their peers, that leaves the reader almost robotically accepting authenticity. Filippo Menczer dissects this dilemma in an article about misinformation on social media by analyzing the nature of our susceptibility to this dilemma by stating, “We humans are vulnerable to manipulation by digital misinformation thanks to a complex set of social, cognitive, economic and algorithmic biases” (Menczer). This conclusion only reinforces the importance of evaluating a source ourselves, without having to rely on outside influence to determine the truth.
With the daily overflow of information, it is more important than ever to separate fact from fiction in our society. Rather than blindly accepting claims that are spoon fed to us daily, it is invaluable to dive deeper into the origin of any claim to create a viable viewpoint of current events. Analyzing the source’s mission statement and the credentials of its author are two preliminary steps to authenticating a news story. Due to the expedited nature of our society, these steps are often ignored and the result is a clear majority of people accepting any report at first glance. If the current trend continues, the consequences could be detrimental to our political standpoints. Public influence in a democracy is something we as citizens hold dear, but information without authentication could only benefit a specific political agenda and destroy any form of journalistic integrity that we have always relied on in our society.
Works Cited
“Pizzagate: Gunman fires in restaurant at centre of conspiracy.” BBC News, BBC, 5 Dec. 2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38205885.
Tavernise, Sabrina. “As Fake News Spreads Lies, More Readers Shrug at the Truth.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Dec. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/fake-news-partisan-republican-democrat.html.
Filippo Menczer Professor of Computer Science and Informatics; Director of the Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research, Indiana University. “Misinformation on social media: Can technology save us?” The Conversation, 28 Nov. 2016, www.theconversation.com/misinformation-on-social-media-can-technology-save-us-69264.