“Every public has its own universe of discourse and…humanly speaking, a fact is only a fact in some universe of discourse.”
Writing 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.
Sydette Harry Facing journalism’s history
Andy Rossback The year of the user
Anita Zielina The sales funnel reaches (and changes) the newsroom
Mary Walter-Brown Getting comfortable asking for money
Jonathan Stray A boom in responsible conservative media
Juan Luis Sánchez Your predictions are our present
Cory Haik Navigating power in Trump’s America
Michael Kuntz Trust is the new click
Mike Ragsdale A smarter information diet
Molly de Aguiar Philanthropists galvanize around news
Steve Henn The next revolution is voice
Jeremy Barr A terrible year for Tiers B through D
Swati Sharma Failing diversity is failing journalism
Vivian Schiller Tested like never before
Andrew Haeg The year of listening
Michael Oreskes Reversing the erosion of democracy
Carrie Brown-Smith We won’t do enough
Tressie McMillan Cottom A path through the media’s coming legitimacy crisis
Keren Goldshlager Defining a focus, and then saying no
Caitlin Thompson High touch, high value
Rachel Schallom Stop flying over the flyover states
Emi Kolawole From empathy to community
Ken Schwencke Disaggregation and collection
Dhiya Kuriakose The year of digital detoxing
Aja Bogdanoff Comments start pulling their weight
Bill Keller A healthy skepticism about data
Ståle Grut The battle for high-quality VR
Dannagal G. Young The return of the gatekeepers
Helen Havlak Chasing mobile search results
Jim Friedlich A banner year for venture philanthropy
Renée Kaplan Pure reach has reached its limit
Sam Ford The year we talk about our awful metrics
Umbreen Bhatti A sense of journalists’ humanity
Libby Bawcombe Kids board the podcast train
Mary Meehan Feeling blue in a red state
Alberto Cairo Communicating uncertainty to our readers
Ariane Bernard Better data about your users
Ole Reißmann Un-faking the news
Melody Kramer Radically rethinking design
Jonathan Hunt Measurement companies get with the times
Jon Slade Trusted news, at a premium
Margarita Noriega From pinning tweets to tweeting pins
Tim Griggs The year we stop taking sides
Priya Ganapati Mobile websites are ready for reinvention
Millie Tran International expansion without colonial overtones
Mandy Velez The audience is the source and the story
Annemarie Dooling UGC as a path out of the bubble
Julia Beizer Building a coherent core identity
Kawandeep Virdee Moving deeper than the machine of clicks
Samantha Barry Messaging apps go mainstream
Katie Zhu The year of minority media
Tim Herrera The safe space of service journalism
An Xiao Mina 2017 is for the attention innovators
Ashley C. Woods Local journalism will fight a new fight
Doris Truong Connecting with diverse perspectives
Rachel Sklar Women are going to get loud
Adam Thomas The coming collaboration across Europe
Liz Danzico The triumph of the small
Kathleen Kingsbury Print as a premium offering
Nathalie Malinarich Making it easy
Francesco Marconi The year of augmented writing
Errin Haines Chaos or community?
Taylor Lorenz “Selfie journalism” becomes a thing
Robert Hernandez History will exclude you, again
Amy Webb Journalism as a service
Hillary Frey Forests need to burn to regrow
Reyhan Harmanci Bear witness — but then what?
Andrea Silenzi Podcasts dive into breaking news analysis
Zizi Papacharissi Distracted journalism looks in the mirror
Nicholas Quah Podcasting’s coming class war
Sue Schardt Objectivity, fairness, balance, and love
P. Kim Bui The year journalism teaches again
Carla Zanoni Prioritizing emotional health
Erin Pettigrew A year of reflection in tech
Gabriel Snyder The aberration of 20th-century journalism
Maria Bustillos “It’s true — I saw it on Facebook”
Bill Adair The year of the fact-checking bot
Christopher Meighan Unlocking a deeper mobile experience
Olivia Ma The year collaboration beats competition
David Weigel A test for online speech
Scott Dodd Nonprofits team up for impact
David Skok What lies beyond paywalls
Mario García Virtual reality on mobile leaps forward
Andrew Ramsammy Rise of the rebel journalist
Alexis Lloyd Public trust for private realities
Rubina Madan Fillion Snapchat grows up
Nushin Rashidian A rise in high-price, high-value subscriptions
Ernst-Jan Pfauth Earn trust by working for (and with) readers
Ray Soto VR moves from experiments to immersion
David Chavern Fake news gets solved
Cindy Royal Preparing the digital educator-scholar hybrid
Andrew Losowsky Building our own communities
S.P. Sullivan Baking transparency into our routines
Sarah Wolozin Virtual reality on the open web
Liz McMillen The year of deep insights
Megan H. Chan Cultural reporting goes mainstream
Richard Tofel The country doesn’t trust us — but they do believe us
Burt Herman Local news gets interesting
Lee Glendinning A call for great editing
Alice Antheaume A new test for French media
Elizabeth Jensen Trust depends on the details
Juliette De Maeyer and Dominique Trudel A rebirth of populist journalism
Mira Lowe News literacy, bias, and “Hamilton”
Almar Latour Thanks, #fakenews
Geetika Rudra Journalism is community
Dan Colarusso Let’s make live video we can love
Laura Walker Authentic voices, not fake news
Sarah Marshall Focusing on the why of the click
Erin Millar The bottom falls out of Canadian media
Rebekah Monson Journalism is community-as-a-service
Javaun Moradi What can we own?
Eric Nuzum Podcasting stratifies into hard layers
Pablo Boczkowski Fake news and the future of journalism
Asma Khalid The year of the newsy podcast
Matt Waite The people running the media are the problem
Matt Karolian AI improves publishing
Valérie Bélair-Gagnon Truthiness in private spaces
Sara M. Watson There is no neutral interface
Corey Ford The year of the rebelpreneur
Ryan McCarthy Platforms grow up or grow more toxic
Emily Goligoski Incorporating audience feedback at scale
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen News after advertising may look like news before advertising
M. Scott Havens Quality advertising to pair with quality content
Tanya Cordrey The resurgence of reach
Tracie Powell Building reader relationships
Amie Ferris-Rotman Вслед за Россией
Claire Wardle Verification takes center stage
Amy O'Leary Not just covering communities, reaching them
Joanne Lipman The year of the drone, really
Mathew Ingram The Faustian Facebook dance continues
Moreno Cruz Osório The year of transparency in Brazilian journalism
Guy Raz Inspiration and hope will matter more than ever
Lam Thuy Vo The primary source in the age of mechanical multiplication