Fake news and the future of journalism

“We can feel nostalgic about a media world slowly but steadily waning, or instead imagine that perhaps a more decentralized and effective everyday culture of critique and argumentation might emerge over time.”

“Every public has its own universe of discourse and…humanly speaking, a fact is only a fact in some universe of discourse.”

pablo-boczkowskiWriting those words three quarters of a century before the Oxford Dictionaries named “post-truth” the 2016 word of the year, Robert Park — a former newspaper journalist and one of the founders of the Chicago School of sociology — understood fake news to be an intrinsic element of any information ecology. Long before Mark Zuckerberg started to be treated as a rapacious business man, noted real and fictitious publishers such as William Randolph Hearst and Charles Foster Kane aimed to exploit the commercial potential of fake news, as did others who predated and succeeded them. On top of intentional attempts to distort or misinform, many unintentional mistakes caught by the public — and a suspicion that there might exist more unidentified ones — have further reinforced a certain stance of skepticism among media audiences over the inherent veracity of the news report.

Yet it is not an overstatement to say that the main story about journalism in the first month after the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States has been a sense of collective shock, outrage, and despair over the prevalence of fake news. Why has this been the case? And what does this mean for the short-term future of journalism?

Most post-election reports on fake news have focused on production side issues, such as the location and potential motivations of the various purveyors of fake news; the changing geopolitical landscape of information warfare; the economic benefits for social media and search engine platforms; and the need and desirability to implement technical and/or financial restrictions that could minimize the spread of misinformation, among others. A production side focus is important and these are all valid instantiations of it. However, this piece examines the other side of the coin by concentrating on some reception dynamics that might undergird the greater prevalence of fake news in the contemporary setting than in the past.

Setting aside discussions about echo chamber and filter bubble effects, which have been analyzed profusely, I want to address three concurrent trends in our media reception practices related to the rising presence of fake news. First, there is ambivalence toward an information infrastructure in which the barriers of access to having one’s voice heard are lower than in the past, and where the reach is potentially much broader. Second, there is a growing perception of limitations in the ability to detect bias in a media environment in which editorial selection increasingly relies on algorithms. Third, there is a crisis in the cultural authority of knowledge that affects not only journalism but other key institutions of modern life, including science, medicine, and education.

Fake news stories have been around for as long as truthful ones. One element that distinguishes the contemporary moment is the existence of a fairly novel information infrastructure with a scale, scope, and horizontality of information flows unlike anything we had seen before. Facebook, for instance, reaches more than 1 billion users daily. This infrastructure enables people to create content alongside established media institutions, and not merely consume it. This, in turn, has allowed previously silent voices to be heard, not just in their localities but all over the world. We have credited these changes with contributing to the breakdown of authoritarian regimes such as in the case of the Arab spring. But these are the same changes that have made it possible for a fake news story about Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump to be shared hundreds of thousands of times.

We celebrate the new infrastructure when it helps undermine information practices of oppressive governments, and denounce it when it contributes to misinforming the citizens of liberal democratic states. But unfortunately, it seems unrealistic to have one without the other, since they are the two sides of the same coin. This does not mean that truthful accounts of oppressive governments are equivalent to untruthful accounts about democratic candidates, but that the information infrastructure that contributes to the spread of both types of accounts is one and the same. Ambivalence about this infrastructure might tempt us to call for policing its destabilizing capabilities in some cases, but this might have the unintended consequence of curtailing its emancipatory potential in others.

This ambivalence is related to a second trend, namely a growing perception in the limitations of detecting bias in algorithmic editing in comparison to human editing. Traditional journalistic outfits have been around for a long time. Over the years, the public has collectively developed ways of identifying bias, and also for distinguishing truthful accounts from parodic or satirical ones. The Watergate investigation was taken to be truthful, the Swift Boat story was initially lent some credibility but discredited later, and the ingenious headlines of publications such as The Onion are not normally interpreted literally.

On the contrary, platforms like Google and Facebook are much more recent additions to the media ecosystem, and their selection procedures are far less known by the public. In addition, their reliance on algorithmic curation has endowed these procedures with a certain opacity that makes it even more difficult for the public to come up with strategies that successfully identify bias. Algorithms do not come from out of the blue: They are written by people who often work for complex organizations. These people and organizations go about their business with conscious and unconscious biases that result in, as Larry Lessig and others have argued, politics in code. However, we feel less capable of deciphering the politics embedded in code than those embodied primarily by people and organizations.

The issues of ambivalence and limitations in bias detection converge with a deep crisis in the cultural authority of knowledge. Trust in the media as an institution has been fairly low for a long time. In an ongoing research project on the consumption of news, my collaborators and I have found, for instance, that the same news item is attributed a higher level of credibility if it is shared by a contact on a social media platform than if it is read directly on the news site that originates it. When asked about this difference, interviewees say it is because they often distrust the media since they are inherently biased, and, on the contrary, their default stance towards their contacts is one based on trust.

This crisis in the cultural authority of knowledge is not an exclusive property of the news. It also applies to other key institutions of modern life, such as medicine, science, and education. We find expressions of this crisis in the debates over the role of vaccines in the rise of autism, which has been echoed in the media and has led to many concerned parents, despite the repeated statements to the contrary by leading medical experts. We also see traces of this crisis in science. For instance, the controversy of evolution versus creationism is still alive and affects the teaching of biology in many schools, in spite of the lack of support for creationism from reputable scientific sources. Social institutions like the media, medicine, science, and education had the capacity to effectively moderate the notion advanced by Robert Park that “a fact is only a fact in some universe of discourse,” and thus create a stronger common ground among disparate constituencies. But this capacity seems to be less effective these days than in the past.

What does this mean for the future of journalism, at least in the short term? Despite the widespread cry for technical solutions and commercial sanctions, it is unlikely that things will change drastically until there are concurrent transformations in reception practices. It may be possible to develop algorithms that identify sources that have repeatedly propagate false information and automatically impose restrictions on their ability to get advertisement revenues. That might bring a temporary fix to centralized attempts to maliciously misinform. But I suspect that those perpetrators could easily dismantle a given operation and quickly launch another one. In addition, this would not necessarily stop decentralized sources of fake news that either intentionally or unintentionally create and/or spread false accounts on social media. These policing procedures could also have an unintended negative effect on parody and satire, which have long had a healthy role in the quality of democratic discourse, and raise the specter of censorship more generally.

If my short-term prediction about the limitations of production-side remedies is right, what we might see alongside with these attempts to algorithmically curtail the spread of fake news is that mainstream journalistic organizations would increasingly have to demonstrate to the public the veracity of the news — and denounce the falsity of alternative accounts — rather than take for granted that aspect of the reception experience. This might possibly not reduce the reliance on fake news stories among those predisposed to believe what these stories state, but it could raise awareness among the less committed segment of the public.

Beneath the surface of many post-election discussions about fake news lies a certain collective unease about the mismatch between the 20th-century routines associated with print and broadcast media, and the 21st-century information practices of our increasingly digital lives. Maybe it is no longer feasible to assume that the delegation of editorial processes to mainstream media suffices to yield accounts about current events that form the basis of common decision making among the citizenry. This is not a normative claim about whether this is desirable or not, but an empirical observation based on the information practices of large segments of the population. We can feel nostalgic about a media world slowly but steadily waning, or instead imagine that perhaps a more decentralized and effective everyday culture of critique and argumentation might emerge over time. As Leonard Cohen wrote in “Anthem”: “Ring the bells that still can ring / Forget your perfect offering / There is crack in everything / That’s how the light gets in.”

Pablo Boczkowski is a professor in the School of Communication at Northwestern University.

Geetika Rudra   Journalism is community

M. Scott Havens   Quality advertising to pair with quality content

Andy Rossback   The year of the user

Claire Wardle   Verification takes center stage

AX Mina   2017 is for the attention innovators

Ray Soto   VR moves from experiments to immersion

Umbreen Bhatti   A sense of journalists’ humanity

Helen Havlak   Chasing mobile search results

Taylor Lorenz   “Selfie journalism” becomes a thing

Amy O'Leary   Not just covering communities, reaching them

Amie Ferris-Rotman   Вслед за Россией

Melody Kramer   Radically rethinking design

Jonathan Hunt   Measurement companies get with the times

Rachel Sklar   Women are going to get loud

Emi Kolawole   From empathy to community

Laura Walker   Authentic voices, not fake news

Margarita Noriega   From pinning tweets to tweeting pins

Sara M. Watson   There is no neutral interface

Annemarie Dooling   UGC as a path out of the bubble

Aja Bogdanoff   Comments start pulling their weight

Dan Colarusso   Let’s make live video we can love

Dhiya Kuriakose   The year of digital detoxing

Adam Thomas   The coming collaboration across Europe

Gabriel Snyder   The aberration of 20th-century journalism

Dannagal G. Young   The return of the gatekeepers

Jon Slade   Trusted news, at a premium

Jonathan Stray   A boom in responsible conservative media

Scott Dodd   Nonprofits team up for impact

Carrie Brown-Smith   We won’t do enough

Tim Herrera   The safe space of service journalism

Reyhan Harmanci   Bear witness — but then what?

Rubina Madan Fillion   Snapchat grows up

David Chavern   Fake news gets solved

Pablo Boczkowski   Fake news and the future of journalism

Guy Raz   Inspiration and hope will matter more than ever

Ashley C. Woods   Local journalism will fight a new fight

Nushin Rashidian   A rise in high-price, high-value subscriptions

Mike Ragsdale   A smarter information diet

Nathalie Malinarich   Making it easy

Andrea Silenzi   Podcasts dive into breaking news analysis

Nicholas Quah   Podcasting’s coming class war

Emily Goligoski   Incorporating audience feedback at scale

Ståle Grut   The battle for high-quality VR

Rachel Schallom   Stop flying over the flyover states

Mathew Ingram   The Faustian Facebook dance continues

Cory Haik   Navigating power in Trump’s America

Mario García   Virtual reality on mobile leaps forward

Mark Armstrong   Time to pay up

Doris Truong   Connecting with diverse perspectives

Sam Ford   The year we talk about our awful metrics

Michael Kuntz   Trust is the new click

Ole Reißmann   Un-faking the news

Ryan McCarthy   Platforms grow up or grow more toxic

Bill Adair   The year of the fact-checking bot

Renée Kaplan   Pure reach has reached its limit

Lam Thuy Vo   The primary source in the age of mechanical multiplication

P. Kim Bui   The year journalism teaches again

Olivia Ma   The year collaboration beats competition

Matt Karolian   AI improves publishing

Burt Herman   Local news gets interesting

Millie Tran   International expansion without colonial overtones

Liz McMillen   The year of deep insights

Andrew Losowsky   Building our own communities

Mary Walter-Brown   Getting comfortable asking for money

Peter Sterne   A dangerous anti-press mix

Asma Khalid   The year of the newsy podcast

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting stratifies into hard layers

Tressie McMillan Cottom   A path through the media’s coming legitimacy crisis

Tanya Cordrey   The resurgence of reach

Maria Bustillos   “It’s true — I saw it on Facebook”

Valérie Bélair-Gagnon   Truthiness in private spaces

Francesco Marconi   The year of augmented writing

Matt Waite   The people running the media are the problem

Alexis Lloyd   Public trust for private realities

Ariane Bernard   Better data about your users

Erin Pettigrew   A year of reflection in tech

Kawandeep Virdee   Moving deeper than the machine of clicks

David Weigel   A test for online speech

Sydette Harry   Facing journalism’s history

Bill Keller   A healthy skepticism about data

Cindy Royal   Preparing the digital educator-scholar hybrid

Samantha Barry   Messaging apps go mainstream

Megan H. Chan   Cultural reporting goes mainstream

Andrew Ramsammy   Rise of the rebel journalist

Alberto Cairo   Communicating uncertainty to our readers

Almar Latour   Thanks, #fakenews

Jim Friedlich   A banner year for venture philanthropy

S.P. Sullivan   Baking transparency into our routines

Amy Webb   Journalism as a service

Erin Millar   The bottom falls out of Canadian media

Alice Antheaume   A new test for French media

Felix Salmon   Headlines matter

Moreno Cruz Osório   The year of transparency in Brazilian journalism

Joanne Lipman   The year of the drone, really

Tim Griggs   The year we stop taking sides

Sue Schardt   Objectivity, fairness, balance, and love

Christopher Meighan   Unlocking a deeper mobile experience

Andrew Haeg   The year of listening

Jeremy Barr   A terrible year for Tiers B through D

Laura E. Davis   Show your work

Caitlin Thompson   High touch, high value

Julia Beizer   Building a coherent core identity

Mira Lowe   News literacy, bias, and “Hamilton”

Priya Ganapati   Mobile websites are ready for reinvention

Kathleen Kingsbury   Print as a premium offering

Juliette De Maeyer and Dominique Trudel   A rebirth of populist journalism

Mary Meehan   Feeling blue in a red state

Javaun Moradi   What can we own?

Anita Zielina   The sales funnel reaches (and changes) the newsroom

Coleen O'Lear   Back to basics

Vivian Schiller   Tested like never before

Juan Luis Sánchez   Your predictions are our present

Richard Tofel   The country doesn’t trust us — but they do believe us

Sarah Marshall   Focusing on the why of the click

David Skok   What lies beyond paywalls

Steve Henn   The next revolution is voice

Dan Gillmor   Fix the demand side of news too

Sarah Wolozin   Virtual reality on the open web

Zizi Papacharissi   Distracted journalism looks in the mirror

Mandy Velez   The audience is the source and the story

Libby Bawcombe   Kids board the podcast train

Liz Danzico   The triumph of the small

Robert Hernandez   History will exclude you, again

Corey Ford   The year of the rebelpreneur

Ken Schwencke   Disaggregation and collection

Trushar Barot   API or die

Carla Zanoni   Prioritizing emotional health

Swati Sharma   Failing diversity is failing journalism

Keren Goldshlager   Defining a focus, and then saying no

Katie Zhu   The year of minority media

Michael Oreskes   Reversing the erosion of democracy

Ernst-Jan Pfauth   Earn trust by working for (and with) readers

Lee Glendinning   A call for great editing

Tracie Powell   Building reader relationships

Errin Haines   Chaos or community?

Elizabeth Jensen   Trust depends on the details

Hillary Frey   Forests need to burn to regrow

Rebekah Monson   Journalism is community-as-a-service

Molly de Aguiar   Philanthropists galvanize around news

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen   News after advertising may look like news before advertising