The World As We Know It?

In 1690, the first American newspaper was published, but it was not until almost a century later in 1789 that the First Amendment to the Constitution granted freedom of expression. This includes freedom of speech and freedom of the press and continues to impact society today. Without it, Americans would be limited in speech and unable to express their true opinion. Because of this freedom, Americans can write what they wish about their views of the world and can freely criticize the government without risking punishment.

Unfortunately with every good thing, it can be twisted into something negative. This is true for the news as ‘fake news’ seems to be on the rise throughout history. Different outlets tell completely different sides of stories or make up their own. 23 percent of Americans confess to creating someone a made-up news story both knowing and unknowingly. In the Columbia Journalism Review, Craig Silverman of Neiman Reports writes, “[T]he forces of untruth have more money, more people, and… much better expertise. They know how to birth and spread a lie better than we know how to debunk one. They are more creative about it, and, by the very nature of what they’re doing, they aren’t constrained by ethics or professional standards. Advantage, liars.” How can anyone have an intelligent opinion about what is actually going on when one cannot decipher between the true and fake stories? It seems like quite a mess, but looking around the world, and according to history, it could be much worse.

Nearly every country watches or reads American news in some capacity, as 14 percent of the globe keeps tabs on American news. Worldwide, newspapers generate about $180 billion in revenue. According to writer and communications expert Straubhaar LaRose Davenport, global news makes about a 50-50 split in paper sales to advertising. Unlike the rest of the world, America relies on advertising for nearly 70 percent of its revenue. The focus on advertising points to the reality behind much of American journalism. It doesn’t matter what the papers say, as long as they sell.

It was not until 1878, years after the First Amendment, that the Yellow Journalism movement began. Yellow Journalism was spearheaded by the rivalry between journalists Joseph Pulitzer and William Hearst, and its conjunction with the general population’s growing consumption of news. Their rivalry resulted in more and more ridiculous ‘news’ articles in order to sell more papers than the other. Their example set the stage. As it turned out, the truth did not sell papers, interesting truth did. Other outlets followed suit, and exaggeration of the truth became very common. Journalists began to focus on spectacle rather than accuracy, and they were more like storytellers than broadcasters. It wasn’t until after the World Wars, and especially the Watergate Scandal in 1972, that journalists who formerly mostly sided with the government out of patriotism, began to establish themselves as critics. According to Straubhaar Davenport, journalists became not only broadcasters and entertainers but ‘watchdogs’ as well. It has become their responsibility to keep the government in check, and they do so with vigor.

There are a cost and benefit to unrestricted speech. On one hand, complete freedom means that journalists can lie to their readers with little to no consequences. Eventually, there was a cap put on libel (libel is an outright lie said about someone or their actions) against private citizens, who are able to sue if they feel so inclined, however, government officials are not allowed to sue for libel. For example, President Trump cannot sue various news outlets for speaking out against him, regardless of whether their statements about him are true or false. While this is necessary to make sure government officials cannot punish journalists, it also means journalists of a particular political leaning can skew or outright lie about anyone in the government in order to advance their own ends, and no one can do anything about it. This is a problem, but the alternative is far worse.

Without freedom of expression, governing officials are inclined to shut down criticism from their citizens entirely. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, modern countries without freedom of expression are North Korea Eritrea, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Syria, and Belarus. At the top, North Korea is the most censored country in the world. These countries, if they have any news outlets at all, usually have one option. This opinion is controlled by one individual. An example of this is Equatorial Guinea who has one private broadcaster, and it is owned by the president's son. Without knowledge outside of what is fed to them, these people are very much at the mercy, not only physically, but psychologically, of their governments. As the writer, Aldous Huxley once said, “One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.” They can only believe what they are taught, which makes it easier for their governments to keep them satisfied with their quality of life. They have no access to the internet, and they can be imprisoned for having possession of non-regulated newspapers. It is a nightmare worthy of apocalyptic fiction.

Is there an answer to the Fake News epidemic? Probably not. Perhaps over time, political differences shall cool, and there will be fewer journalists inclined to stretch the truth. Outside of this remote possibility, it becomes the responsibility of the average citizen to not only read but to work for the truth. Michael R. Lewis, public figure and a retired corporate executive, recommends that people avoid ‘confirmation bias’ (assuming an article is correct because you agree with it), check the legitimacy of the source, confirm the information is reported in multiple places, distinguish between news and opinion, and to watch out for old information. In general, it is a good practice to check multiple articles known for different political leanings when it comes to national news, in order to get a more accurate picture of the events. It is not a perfect system, but neither is any system. If we use common sense and take the time to research beyond a single opinion, there is little reason to be frightened by ‘Fake News’.