Fake news has been the subject of a debate for some time now involving the media, politics and social networks. The concept of fake news became highly relevant during Donald Trump’s term in the White House between 2017 and 2021, and the coronavirus pandemic between 19 and 20 only aggravated the problem. To this day, hoaxes and false information remain, although in a more attenuated form, at the center of the conversation.
In Spain, fake news has played an important role in the recent political career of Alvise Pérez, and also worries the Government, which is preparing a bill to transpose the European Media Freedom Regulation into national legislation.
In this context, it is worth echoing a reflection made by two university professors of science and technology, Jennifer Allen and David Rand, reflected in a recent article from Scientific American magazine. In this article, called “the fight against disinformation goes beyond ending ‘fake news’”, both academics argue that, in reality, fake news is not necessarily the core of today’s disinformation problem.
Citing various scientific studies, as well as some specific cases in the United States, the academics explain that, in fact, fake news is not capable of causing as severe damage to democracy as is believed.
This is because these fake news, easily recognized as such by the majority, are actually spread among minority groups, affected by the filter bubbles. They do not have as much experience in social networks, and it is not proven that there is a clear correlation between exposure to this fake news and voting decisions when going to elections.
For these arguments, they explain that ending fake news, for example by denying it or deactivating platforms that broadcast it, is not necessarily useful. However, they recognize that there is a clear problem of misinformation in today’s society. So what is the real problem, and the solutions to it?
Uncertain information, even more damaging
Well, as Allen and Rand argue, we can think of some ‘half-truths’ or the uncertain or misleading information published by major media outlets, with a good reputation behind them, as factors that can seriously damage the credibility and people’s security about the news they consume.
Continuing with the examples they give, we can think of the news during the COVID era that talked about cases of death that could be related to the vaccine, even though the situation was not clear. They also cite the media’s obsession with doing too much statement journalism, which is what we call the production of news that simply echoes a politician’s statements without investing so much time in corroborating or denying what he says. For example, replicating everything Donald Trump says even though it is clearly not true.
In the end, what they propose is, on the one hand, that the large media outlets be more careful when doing their job since, in reality, their power of influence is much greater than that of minority pseudo-media outlets that are dedicated to spread hoaxes. Clickbait is, of course, something that should be avoided, rather than applied to political news.
On the other hand, social networks should improve the way they warn of false information. Twitter, for example, made good progress with the implementation of community notes. However, what would really help would be algorithms that reward content based on its quality, rather than pure engagement as a unit of measurement.
