Fake News? Real News? What's the Difference? Does it Matter?

Fake news. Sometimes doesn’t it all feel like fake news? Weren’t the past eight years filled with fake news? Though it seems as though the fake news industry has boomed in the past few years as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have gained in popularity, we sometimes forget how far back the history of fake news goes. Weekend Update on SNL started long before either show, and I am sure that even earlier examples exist.

In any case, I think that fake news is great. Sure, it becomes a problem when ALL we see is fake news. However, I think that it is a fantastic supplement. In my experience, I tend to become jaded and disillusioned when all I see are “serious” news reports. Madoff’s a sleazebag, Bush is a liar, Palin is….well…I don’t even know where to start. It is exhausting, and fake news sources are a refreshing place to turn when I am sick of hearing sound bites and I want to laugh. And let’s face it—sometimes it just feels good to take our crazy political and public figures down a few notches.

Besides, it is informative, as the online article by Andrea Janus suggests. This is how I feel: If people are watching regular news sources AND supplementing them with fake news, then great. Even if people are using fake news as their only source of news, that’s great too, because they likely wouldn’t be getting any news at all otherwise. This second group, who use fake news as their only news source, is nevertheless more informed by Steven Colbert than if they had simply been watching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond, for example. Perhaps the satirical fake news could even spark their interest to look further into an issue.

All of the articles assigned for this week really got me thinking about where the line is drawn between fake news and “real” news. Without a doubt, this line is very, very blurry. I think about this as a spectrum. Steven Colbert and The Onion? Obviously on one far side of the spectrum. MSNBC or hard-hitting “real” news, for example? The other side of the spectrum. But what is in the middle, and how are we positioned to think about it? Right now I am specifically thinking about entertainment news shows such as Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, and Extra. At first, people may write off these shows as being completely un-newsworthy. But during the 2008 Presidential Election, I watched time and time again as these shows dealt with very newsworthy issues. Does anyone remember when Extra host (and former Saved by the Bell star) Mario Lopez interviewed Barack Obama? Or when Access Hollywood scored the interview with the entire Obama family, including Sasha and Malia? Sure, as the Janus article suggests, these interviews focused more on the personal and less on the political, but if I remember correctly, serious political issues were also discussed. This brings up an important set of questions that sums up all of the readings for this week: What exactly is considered newsworthy? What is the ratio of fluff to “hard news” that qualifies a story as real news? Why does this matter? Finally, which is more important: the reputation of the news source, or the content?

Additionally, many assumptions are made in the “fake news” business. First—readers are expected to come to the news source with a basic knowledge of current events. As one of the readings suggested, The Onion would not be as funny if readers did not know the story behind the “stories.” So we assume that the audience is clued in to the joke. Second—we come to a certain news source, satirical or not, with a very specific set of expectations. On Meet the Press, we expect to see serious politics discussed. In The Onion, we expect to see bizarre, obviously fake stories that are based in real or pseudo-real situations. On Access Hollywood, we expect to find out what Charlize Theron wore to the Oscars. That’s why it seems so unexpected and shocking when our assumptions are proven to be incorrect, and why it was so memorable to see the Obamas interviewed seriously on that program. Third—audiences are expected to have a certain level of cultural savvy and intelligence. We must know when the news is fake and when it is real. We must be able to read the signals in order to figure out when the joke stops and starts.

Increasingly, however, these assumptions are proving to be quite fluid, and they are challenged from various angles. In this case, I am thinking about the “Taking Colbert Seriously” clip, when fake news was “recognized as legitimate or influential enough to warrant correction.” Though not everyone agrees that fake news is a good source for “real” news (I happen to be on the pro-fake-news side of the debate), Colbert’s apology unequivocally speaks to the power of fake news. It is a force to be reckoned with, and these fake news sources hold considerable political power and access to a very key demographic. Would the political outcomes of campaigns be different if different parties had “worked” the fake news sources differently? There is no way to know, but logic would suggest that this is true.

Fake news is only going to become more popular in these distressing economic times, as citizens look for humor in current events. Indeed, fake news requires critical and cultural analysis just like any other news source, but we are currently in a very interesting news environment in which “fake news” could prove to have a very powerful and (dare I say it) positive effect on the nation’s collective psyche. This reminds me of the powerful effect of Jon Stewart’s Indecision 2000, as discussed by Kothe. Indeed, “by donning the fool’s cap, by playing the clown,” as Kothe suggests, hosts such as Stewart are able to be more honest and candid from their unofficial platform than any shellacked, mainstream newsperson could have the power to be.

Since this class is meant to relate to education, let me close on this note. Teachers--do not be afraid to incorporate fake news sources into your classroom. Often, the satirical nature of fake news makes it much wittier and more engaging than traditional news sources, and may also spark more critical thinking from students. Fake news provides a great intro to just about any serious topic, and it is a great way to scaffold material for students who may not "get it" right away. If we want to get kids excited about school and current events, why not incorporate a bit of humor into the classroom? Likely, they are already somewhat familiar with shows such as Jon Stewart. If not, let's start them early! English classes, history classes, science classes--fake news exists for nearly every subject. Fake news is just another resource out there for teachers to access in order to make school exciting for students and to help students make real-world connections to the society around them.