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.

Last week I went to Professor Schwarz’s Rose Cafe on fake news, and when asked to define fake news, it took a second before I could come up with something.  The literal definition of fake news is news that is fake, but it has taken on a different meaning since Donald Trump coined the term.  Trump uses the term fake news to attack stories about him that he does not like, making his supporters dislike the media and become wary about the news released about him.  But, I never realized how much of the news is actually fake.  Just two days ago, Tom Petty went into cardiac arrest, and many news outlets were reporting that he had passed away, when in fact he was still alive, but had just been taken off of life support.  He did pass away sadly later that night, but this example reminded me about what Professor Schwarz said about news outlets such as CNN being “fake” because of their rush to be the first to break a story- in doing so, they do not fact check as much, and this leads to them being wrong more often than other news outlets that wait a few minutes longer to post “breaking news.”  In addition, almost all news outlets have a political leaning as well as a bias, which provides different versions of the same events.  For example, when looking at the recent events surrounding the NFL, some outlets discuss how the NFL is taking a stance against racism, while other outlets discuss how Americans should stand for the national anthem.  While discussing the same event, the biases and leanings produce different versions of events.  I found this talk very informative and interesting.

Last week, I attended a Rose Cafe where Professor Dan Schwarz talked about fake news. In today’s day and age, we are constantly bombarded with multitudes of sources of news. How do we sort through all of this clutter? How do we decide what to believe? Oftentimes, we believe what comes up first in a google search from what seems like a credible source, such as CNN or the New York Times. However, an interesting point was brought up in this talk. The reason that CNN’s new is seen as fake news is because they tend to put news out as soon as it happens, without digesting it. On the contrary, the New York Times tends to be more credible because they have a much larger team of people working on sorting out the details of events, trying to give the most accurate analysis of the news.

Fake new also goes beyond just news organizations. Fakes news is also a big problem in the scientific world, and it is important for people to be wary of what they believe because of the consequences that could follow as a result of believing or not believing something based off of faulty premises. It is in all of our best interests to evaluate where we get our information from, who we trust, and how we come to conclusions about what we believe.

Last week I went to a Rose Cafe where we talked about fake news. We talked about what it is and why it is so widespread. While we were talking, I realized that “fake news” is not just limited to news organizations, it also exists in science. It is common knowledge that recently many of the papers that have been published either exaggerate their findings/p-values or just straight up make up data. This is a very real problem facing the scientific community with consequences that can affect the general public. For example, there was a paper published a couple decades ago that suggested that there was a link between vaccines and autism. It claimed that vaccines cause autism. Since then, there have been numerous studies and papers published that prove that vaccines do not cause autism. But, the damage has already been done. There are many people who choose not to vaccinate themselves/their children because they believe that vaccines cause autism. We have already seen the rise of diseases like measles that could have easily been prevented by vaccinations, all because of one fraudulent paper. This is why we have to wary of “fake news” both in the scientific community and in general because it can have far-reaching consequences.

Is it rude to say that I was a bit disappointed in the talk? The content wasn’t bad though, and Dan Schwarz is smart and a great orator.

However, I signed up for a talk about how to succeed in school. Lord knows I need it- all the tips and tricks for a successful four years from a genuine Cornell Professor. Instead, we talked about fake news in the media. And I was positively bored. I found myself yawning a few times as we discussed Trump (inevitably) and sketchy newspapers. The best part of the talk was when I made myself mint tea. I did learn a few interesting fun facts, though. Like how most news sources get their news from the New York Times because they’re the only newspaper that has enough money to send out good investigative journalists. And for that reason (the good investigative journalism), The Times sweeps up Pulitzer Prizes every year.

Other than that, I can’t tell you much else. Journalism isn’t one of my favorite things to discuss. It wasn’t all a waste though. That was some tasty mint tea.

It was simply a delight to hear Professor Schwarz speak at the most recent Rose Cafe this week. Speaking on the the topic of “fake news” was rather enlightening for both the unique perspective he presented and for how it challenged me to think what precisely constituted fake news. I loved hearing about the professor’s research on the topic as he interviewed the publisher and reporters of the New York Times (my favorite newspaper) on how the paper operates and regulates itself. He was particularly enthusiastic and engaged the audience through thought-provoking questions such as assessing the bias of information we are expose to. I especially enjoyed his vague resemblance to Chuck Schumer. I’ll be looking forward to the next time he comes to speak to us, and likely even take a class or two with him!

This past week I attended the Rose Café with Professor Dan Schwarz, where we discussed the news media, fake news, and the issues surrounding how the news is reported, both historically and today. Our discussion focused on two of the most highly regarded news outlets due to their factual and comprehensive coverage of issues—The New York Times and The Washington Post. I found it interesting, and reassuring, that Professor Schwarz was able to confirm, based on his extensive knowledge and previous writing experience, that these news organizations were indeed real, truthful news sources, especially during this time where the President of the United States claims The New York Times and The Washington Post are “fake news” because they give him unfavorable news coverage.

What also intrigued me during our discussion was how the definition of fake news can be applied to many different settings. For a student, padding a resume can be considered fake news since it does not accurately reflect the student’s abilities and experiences. Another example mentioned was spreading or not stopping the spread of rumors, which typically are not true and can be damaging to a person. Professor Schwarz used the example of how many people deny that former president Barack Obama was not born in the United States. The spread of this fake news story proved that, no matter how much evidence there is to support something, like all the evidence supporting that Barack Obama was born in the United States, some people will continue to spread this fake news in their daily lives.

This discussion made me more confident in the way I get my news, while also making me aware of the various kinds of fake news out there. I will also continue to be cautious about the news stories I read to make certain I am not spreading any fake news. Overall, the talk by Professor Schwarz made me a more careful consumer of the news, a useful life tool.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” This is one of the most memorable quotes from George Orwell’s 1984 and what came to my mind as I attended this week’s Rose Cafe on ‘fake news’ led by Professor Schwarz.

FAKE NEWS!!! is Donald Trump’s favourite exclamation at anything that doesn’t show him in a favourable light. Yet he is the biggest propagator of ‘fake news’ or more bluntly said, lies. It is also concerning to witness how he tries to rewrite history so that he can never be wrong. Most recently, he deleted his tweets supporting the Alabama primary senate candidate who lost. Trump’s attempt to rewrite the past will probably work with his base but luckily, once something is on the internet, it’s definitely still in existence somewhere. I’m afraid of the time when an authority figure will be able to do things like this to try and change history in a society where people will unthinkingly accept everything they see and hear, a truly Orwellian concept.

However, this is not to say this type of falsities from the government is a new concept. Throughout history, the truth has been bent or neglected in order for a group to push forward their own agenda. Some of the events mentioned in the talk included the vilification of Japanese-Americans in World War II, McCarthyism and the red scare, and the government’s clandestine motivations for the Vietnam War.

What I got out of the talk was the importance of citizens to be engaged politically as well as for news outlets to keep their integrity and report unequivocal truths. The bottom line is that there does exist an objective truth that transcends the human mind, no matter how hard certain groups try misconstrue it. We as the next generation of citizens should try our best to not lose the meaning of truth.

In today’s Rose Cafe with Professor Schwarz, we discussed the importance of careful consumption of information with much attention focused on the different kinds of fake news and biased news we might encounter. This is an issue that recent events have brought into focus, though inaccurate or premature news stories are by no means new.

I was interested to hear about Okrent’s Law, which states that certain opinions are not worth reporting on because they argue without evidence against something that is clearly true. When Professor Schwarz introduced this idea, I was initially a little concerned that this could be used as justification for censorship of the kind that the church once imposed on thinkers like Galileo who challenged the universally accepted “truth” of a geocentric universe. However, I realized as Professor Schwarz continued that what we’re talking about in this case are arguments without scientific basis, such as denials of evolution or climate change. This relieved some of my concerns about the suppression of new ideas (which is also something we touched on a little).

It was also interesting to consider CV padding as a kind of fake news that students and faculty might create to advance their own goals. While this particularly brand of misinformation is certainly not as malicious as inventions like McCarthyism and Pizzagate, it is perhaps more relevant to us at Cornell. It is valuable to consider our own contributions to the truth in how we present ourselves and the world around us.

I really loved how Professor Schwarz pointed out that fake news surrounds all aspects of our communication—not just media communication—and has always surrounded us. The development of the concept of fake news over the last year is something that has really fascinated me—how different people emphasize different definitions of it, how concerned the country at large has gotten about it, and how it has become sort of a colloquial phrase in the same way that “lit” or “shook” has. Despite having gone to a couple of different events and discussions about fake news on campus, Professor Schwarz’s point that every time we fail to speak out against the words of others that spread stereotypes, mindlessly pass on a word of gossip, or create a false rumor about someone or something out of our own bad feelings, we are fueling fake news. This point is so important to remember because given that spreading or failing to stop the spread of these kinds of seeds of fake news is nearly an everyday action for us, it is no wonder that it is starting to saturate the media, get in the way of political elections, and feed division on larger scales. If we perpetuate fake news at a micro-level, we are numbing ourselves to the consequences it can create at a macro-level. We may share ridiculous stories simply for the laugh of it, feed into conspiracy theories for the thrill of debating about it, and then get so caught up in the fake that we are no longer vigilant about making the distinction the real and the fake. This added perspective to the fake news phenomenon reveals that people really do have more power against fake news and that this power is easier to make use of than is immediately apparent. By recognizing our own tendencies and speaking out against the actions of others that fuel and normalize fake news, we reduce the power fake news has to entice and divide the country.