Our conversation about fake news with Professor Dan Schwarz was very engaging and thought provoking to me perhaps because of a recent apathy and confusion I have felt when thinking about news and media coverage in general. My recent entrance into the “adult world” where one is expected to keep up with current events coupled with the media’s recent growth in social presence has been overwhelming to say the least. One of the most discouraging factors to me as someone seeking information about global events was the possibility that I could very easily encounter news online that was false information in disguise, also known as fake news. Though I am not studying political science or journalism, the discussion on fake news made this topic very relevant to my life. We began by discussing the different definitions of this phrase and decided to stick with the definition that meant that the news reported was simply untrue, as opposed to the other popular definition of dismissing something one doesn’t agree with as “fake news”. Discussing the former was surprisingly relieving, it gave me an understanding that many reputable news sources (Professor Schwarz gave us a list) do make false claims from time to time for one reason or another. This explanation, though simplified above, made me realize that at the end of the day, reporters are humans and the truth is something that can occasionally be clouded by time, bias, or simple mistakes. This was a sort of relief to me because it was a way of telling me that a grain of skepticism when reading the news was healthy, but that I shouldn’t let this skepticism keep me wholly away from being an informed individual. This conversation gave me hope during a time I thought to give up on staying connected with the world.
Rose Scholars Fall 2017
Endless possibilities
I completely agree with your viewpoint on how we should keep in mind that reporters are all human, but that we should not avoid the news simply for this reason. Unfortunately, I have found that some people (in particular, those who follow the other popular definition of “fake news”) will try to use this as evidence to support their view that reputable news sources are sources of “fake news.” For instance, if a reputable news source publishes something that turns out to have been a mistake, some will point to the fact that such an article was publish as proof that the news source only publishes fake news. Their argument essentially sums up to, “If they published something like this that is clearly wrong, then they cannot be trusted at all!”
So, in the end, we should look at the big picture to determine whether a news source is reputable or not. Instead of focusing on one particular case, we should evaluate whether or not a news source is accurate and/or biased over all. Of course there will always be exceptions, but that is what they are–exceptions.