This article being accompanied by memes?Fake News! (jk, memes are life)
Ahhhhhh. Fake news. The infamous term used most frequently (and infamously) by Donald Trump to describe pretty much any news he dislikes, which usually means that someone somewhere has written something about him and he didn’t like it. Whenever he uses a phrase or word (much like the covfefe affair) he quickly becomes the object of derision and ridicule, and everyone starts to create memes and jokes surrounding the word (it’s the Millennial way).
fake news (ˌfeɪk ˈnjuːz) noun: false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting [The Telegraph, Singh, A, 2017]
The Collins Dictionary [2017] deemed fake news to be their Word of the Year for 2017, and of course, there are few terms which have increased in usage as much as that term (except, apparently ‘cuffing season’, which was also included in the top 20 of the Words of the Year. It’s snowing right now folks, so now is as good a time as any to engage in said cuffing season).
But just how much of the news we consume nowadays is actually “real”? And how much is “fake”? And how do we even define reality vs non-reality? Isn’t it ironic that reality shows are often criticised for being fake when the genre is about being real and not dramatized. (Ask anyone who’s seen at least one episode of the Kardashians and they’ll assure you, the whole thing is a drama-fest #ILostMyEarringInTheOcean #KimTheresPeopleThatAreDying)
Of course, we can’t write an article about fake news without mentioning the person who revitalised this phrase recently (talk about Donald and the frequency of usage of “fake news”).
There are perhaps two angles you can approach the phenomenon of fake news from: is it better to let the media how free rein and write whatever, under whatever bias they have? Or would it be better to cut ties to governments, political parties or organisations who fund the newspapers who then write articles in favour or in opposition of whatever the latest fad is? I personally think both arguments have pros and cons, and to be honest, it’s hard to know which is right. We talk about free press being an integral part of living in a democratic society, and of being part of the Western World, but how free is our press? And how do we as Westerners define things in comparison to how other countries or continents may do it? Just because it’s not Western doesn’t mean it’s not valid. And there’s a lot of evidence to support the press in other countries who try to report as transparently and accurately as possible (give an example of an eastern country with impartial press).
So, to conclude, I don’t think Donald has genuine concern for the state of the press in the Western World. I think it has little to do with how fair and transparent the press is, and most likely a lot more to do with the way they report him and his failings (or mishaps, maybe he’d prefer that term instead). The press (by and large) report accurately and with no agenda, so I think what he should focus on is himself. Of course, the news outlets that do clearly have a bias should, in my opinion, make that very clear. Bias is fine, in fact, it will allow your audience to share a common purpose and motivation. It narrows your potential audience, as those who don’t share the same political ideology will be more likely to not buy the paper. However, my mum is an avid reader of the Daily Mail, and I just read it by default because it’s the only paper in our house, but that definitely doesn’t mean I agree with everything they write or endorse. If Donald wants the articles that include him to be more positive, maybe he could try doing something positive? That seems as likely as a reality star becoming the President of the United States! Oh, wait…
With thanks to Giorgia Ziliani
