There’s a PolitiFact editorial entitled “The media’s definition of fake news vs. Donald Trump’s” (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/18/deciding-whats-fake-medias-definition-fake-news-vs/) which begins:
‘When PolitiFact fact-checks fake news, we are calling out fabricated content that intentionally masquerades as news coverage of actual events.’ It goes on to say:
‘Instead of fabricated content, Trump uses the term to describe news coverage that is unsympathetic to his administration and his performance, even when the news reports are accurate.’
PolitiFact’s definition, ‘fabricated content’, is understandable: their mission is fact-checking. Trump’s claimed definition is similar to another common one: a fake news story is one that deliberately misinforms or deceives readers. The Digital Forensics Research Lab uses a definition similar to PolitiFact’s, “deliberately presenting false information as news” (https://medium.com/dfrlab/fake-news-defining-and-defeating-43830a2ab0af) which they distinguish from disinformation, “deliberately spreading false information”.
When you have differing definitions for something, it’s worth paying attention to the differences. Suppose a story doesn’t outright lie, but does have a point it wants to make: it’s trying to influence your views or pushing the author’s (or his organization’s) opinion or agenda. In other words, it’s biased or slanted. News is ‘a report of new and noteworthy information about important events.’ Suppose we fail to report an important event? Or puff something that isn’t relevant into ‘news’? What if someone picks and chooses which stories to tell, or how to tell them, in order to push an agenda? Is that legitimate news, or is it fake?
Words can and should be precise tools. Consider the Politifact article’s use of the word ‘unsympathetic’. What if you substitute ‘biased’, ‘opinionated’, ‘one-sided’, or ‘partisan’ for ‘unsympathetic’?
I’m not suggesting that facts don’t matter. But a perusal of many articles labeled as news is likely to show you more than facts. As Dennis Prager wrote in the National Review: ‘When it comes to straight news stories – an earthquake in Central America, say – the news media often do their job responsibly. But when a story has a left-wing interest, they abandon straight news reporting and take on the role of advocates.’ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/mainstream-media-left-wing-bias-dennis-prager-santa-monica-symphony-orchestra-new-york-times-los-angeles-times-npr)
The dictionary definition of bias is ‘prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.’ The Digital Forensics Research Lab separates disinformation (deliberately spreading false information) from misinformation (unintentionally spreading false information.) I think it’s fair to consider most biased reporting as deliberate; reporters use words for a living.
How widespread is bias in news reporting? Politico polled 63 members of the White House press corps anonymously. Of this group, 45% admitted that media coverage was biased against Trump; 2% said they were biased in his favor, and 53% said they weren’t biased at all. Politico comments: ‘Let us repeat that: Nearly half of all White House correspondents admit the media’s coverage is biased against Trump.’ Many people might not believe the other 53%.
The article continues:
‘A post-election poll conducted by the Media Research Center found that 69% of voters don’t believe the news media are “honest and truthful,” while 78% felt that coverage of Trump was biased. Some 59% felt the media were biased for Clinton, while just 21% said they were biased for Trump.’ Michael Goodwin put it this way, in an article in the New York Post: ‘Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction.’
Needless to say, not all bias runs in one direction. There’s liberal bias, but there’s also conservative bias: Fox for CNN. There’s also institutional bias, defined by Noam Chomsky as ‘systematic biases of U.S. media as a consequence of the pressure to create a stable and profitable business.’ (Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988) As Chomsky describes it, American commercial media encourages controversy within a narrow range of opinion, in order to give the impression of open debate, but does not report on news that falls outside that range. Although Chomsky’s book predates the 2016 election by almost 30 years, it could have been written specifically about recent political news. In a weird way, the liberal media benefits from Trump exactly as he benefits from the media: each appeals to its base by deploring the other side.
There was a time when the mainstream media were trusted sources, precisely because news organizations and journalists followed a strict code of ethics. Those codes still exist. For example, there’s the Society of Professional Journalists ethics document, , which contains, as one of its tenants, “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/app/uploads/2014/03/mediaethics_handout5.pdf )
Is such objectivity really a goal anymore? It’s debatable. CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour stated that in some circumstances ‘neutrality can mean you are an accomplice to all sorts of evil.’ (https://www.quora.com/War-correspondent-Christiane-Amanpour-has-said-that-strict-journalistic-neutrality-can-mean-that-you-are-an-accomplice-to-all-sorts-of-evil-Is-she-right)
As I see it, the problem is that when media gets to decide what’s evil and biases their reporting to make that point, they’re reducing your ability to decide.
We’ve wandered far afield. Let’s circle back to the PolitiFact article. PolitiFact holds a Media Bias Fact Check designation of ‘Least Biased.’(https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/) It’s won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting. But the cited editorial, by editor Angie Holan, has a few issues of its own. Let’s look more closely.
Fact-checking, PolitiFact’s reason d’etre ignores other components of disinformation. The slide from reporting facts to stating opinions masquerading as facts is a self-serving generalization and excuses a lot of mainstream bias. Calling out just the news that fails PolitiFact’s fact-checking also begs the question of which stories are, or are not, checked. Does PolitiFact cherry-pick? An article by Matt Shapiro in The Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/) thinks so.
But also consider that Trump’s ‘definition’ of fake news is a claim Holan makes, not a statement by Trump. In other words, it’s an opinion, not a fact. That doesn’t make it wrong. I’m fairly sure Trump’s definition of fake news differs from Holan’s. But Holan has set up a straw man here. She’s arguing with a definition and examples she created. Straw man arguments are, by definition, logical fallacies, usually created for the purpose of persuasion.
The precise manipulation of Holan’s wording in her asserted definition (’unsympathetic’ as opposed to ‘biased’) is also obviously slanted language, linguistic bias.
The PolitiFact article states: ‘If you define fake news as fabricated content, then 2016 was the year fake news came into its own.’ Apparently so- witness the Politico editorial.
This is not to say that fact checkers, including PolitiFact, aren’t useful- they’re valuable tools in the war against disinformation. The Internet created new ways to publish, share and consume information and news with very little self-regulation or editorial standards. Much of this new alternative media, as the article rightly points out, uses or copies ‘facts’ which are in fact false. But that doesn’t make mainstream media blameless, and it doesn’t make news what the mainstream media says it is.
Ultimately it’s up to you, the reader, to decide what distinguishes true from false, and belief from opinion. My advice is to beware of opinion masquerading as news. And don’t trust anybody, not even the fact checkers.