We're all more than aware of the current obsession with "fake news" - I've even written a post relating to it before. But I'm growing weary of the grasp it has on all our conversations about the media.
Remember that infamous Trump car crash of a press conference (see highly necessary image for reference) - maybe he had a point? Now before you go shouting and arm-flailing in retaliation hear me out... Trump's context was entirely wrong. According to him everyone that questions his authority, morality, legality, leadership or hairpiece is part of the fake news machine. What I'm trying to say is that at its core, perhaps every outlet is generating somewhat "fake news"?
According to the Raconteur quote I've pinned; "In essence, fake news is sensationalist, inflated, false content which is generated and disseminated in a bid to mislead for nefarious reasons". Now I don't know about you but I've seen a fair share of Daily Mail articles that almost fit this bill... as I'm thinking about it some other publications too. No media outlet is truly independent - not event the Independent (RIP print version).
A photo which seemed to unveil a conspiracy Amelia Earhart's disappearance went viral recently, even becoming a top news story on the BBC. It was days later discredited by a blogger, who spent a mere 30 minutes looking for the original photo to discover it was taken 2 years before her disappearance. Is that fake news? Or just shoddy journalism?
I think we need to have clearer definitions between fake news and "fake news"... before we start to question reality entirely.
Now fake news has evolved to become a catch-all phrase for the purposeful attempt to pass falsities for realities, though it is more sinister than parody or satire; it is the zeitgeist version of ‘bullshit’. In essence, fake news is sensationalist, inflated, false content which is generated and disseminated in a bid to mislead for nefarious reasons – such as political or financial gain – or even just for malicious kicks, or rather clicks.