COLUMN: When is fake news not fake news?

When is fake news not fake news?

Believe it or not, fake news is an old concept. Way back in the mid-1890’s, the term “yellow journalism” was used to describe stories that exaggerated or sensationalized the news, often hand-in-hand with a hyperbolic headline.

The technique has been used in virtually every entertainment medium, from radio talk shows to tabloids to late night television ads — ShamWOW! — and has become even more prevalent with the growth of the internet. Exaggerated stories and sensational headlines entice link clicks and those clicks generate revenue.

Despite what it sometimes seems when I scroll through my “grew up in Idaho then lived in Texas and Utah” Facebook feed, fake news isn’t solely a partisan or even an educational problem. People across the political, educational and economic spectrum are at risk of being tricked.

The primary concern with fake news is the effect these false stories have on the marketplace of ideas. That marketplace concept goes back as far as the 1600s (my history minor is really paying off huh?), when the poet John Milton wrote that speech shouldn’t be limited because “in a free and open encounter,” the truthful and most valuable information would win out.

Freedom of speech is a foundational American concept, a belief that has become the ideological backbone of this great country. Freedom of speech allows the marketplace of ideas to work. If an opinion or a perspective is silenced, then its merits — good or bad — can’t be weighed and argued. We need to be able to say what we believe so others can decide if what we say is true.

The Founding Fathers considered the freedom to express dissenting opinions so important that they made it the very first addition to the Constitution. Without it, every other freedom is less valuable.

Which is where the danger of fake news comes back in.

Forgive me for using a very simple elementary school example to support this point. Let’s say you’re holding one of those awesome big boxes of 64 crayons that all the kids love, but one of the other kids says it doesn’t have 64 crayons. According to the marketplace of ideas, we should be able to count the crayons, prove which statement is true and, ultimately, discredit that other kid’s statement. But if other kids in the class believe him, even when you prove your statement is true, then the marketplace has failed. The truth has not won out.

When the authenticity of a fact can be questioned, despite all evidence to the contrary, then truth no longer has a place in the conversation.

When Bernie Sanders claims 40 percent of guns in the U.S. are sold without a background check — a claim based on a 20-year-old survey that used irrelevant data that has been factually disproven — he’s undermining the effectiveness of the marketplace (intentional or not, it’s still incredibly damaging). When President Donald Trump claims to have signed the most legislation of any U.S. president, even though he’s actually last, it seems like an innocent and silly mistake. But his consistent and repeated defenses of factual errors weakens the integrity of the marketplace and forces us to choose between the truth and the president — something no citizen should ever have to do.

This is bigger than just politics, too. When you spread the lie that vaccines cause autism — seriously, it’s been disproven over and over and over and over again — you’re assaulting the marketplace and contributing to the possibility of a significant public health crisis. If you accept conspiracies and insist the earth is flat (it’s not), you’re ignoring facts and forcing truth out of the conversation.   

If truth is relative, how can an idea stand on its own merit? And is ignoring the truth as a way to discredit others any different from silencing their opinion altogether?

My assertion is that there is no difference. Intentionally untrue statements are a threat to the marketplace of ideas and, indeed, a threat to the core freedom the United States of America was founded on.

So what can you do? Be diligent and be aware of the information you consume and share. If a media organization regularly produces content that causes strong emotions, particularly fear and anger, then that media might be exaggerating or sensationalizing the information to get your attention. If a blog is hand-wringing about problems in society while also selling a product that claims to be the answer, then take a moment to consider how much incentive that organization has — or doesn’t have — to tell the truth. Avoid living in an “echo chamber” and seek out opinions that are different from your own.

There’s great value in understanding how and why others view the world the way they do, even if you don’t always agree with them.

Learn what constitutes good research and study the facts about current topics and events. Don’t fall victim to conspiracy theories. Consider dropping cable news from your media diet altogether (a 24-hour news service has a lot of incentives to exaggerate and sensationalize to keep your attention). Be a well-informed citizen and, most importantly, don’t be afraid to change your mind if you uncover additional evidence that provides a new perspective.

Truth has always been at risk of being silenced, but now it faces an even more menacing fate: death by ignorance.

To finish, I’m going to bring this full-circle and, at the risk of sounding obtuse and over-simplified, provide an answer to the question I started with: fake news isn’t fake news when it’s actually true.

Make sure you know the difference.