Introduction
The phenomenon of reading an old newspaper is known: it is read with great interest until the eyes fall on the number. This suggests that the news is not particularly news; they reflect and confirm the model of the world, where only deviations from it are significant, stopping the attention of readers (Yap, Snyder & Drye 2018). News can perform different functions, reflect the world more or less objectively, or deliberately distort certain aspects of the world.
They build a positive or negative picture of the world, keep the audience’s attention on the right aspects of the world or consciously switch the audience’s attention to other aspects. Fakes appeared in a world which was well-prepared for them – advertising and propaganda, the interests of the authorities or owners: and the interests of the opposition flooded the information space. Social media made it possible to dramatically increase the number of sources, thereby virtually destroying the concept of reliability or unreliability of information. In modern media, the concept of reliability has faded into the background, although it was a top priority in traditional journalism.
Definition and Purpose of ‘Fake News’
What is ‘Fake News’?
Fake news as a phenomenon exists as much as journalism itself, but, for the first time, fake news was talked about during the election campaign in the US as a factor that could influence world events. Thousands of articles, hundreds of scientific works, and dozens of conferences are devoted to fake news. In about the same period, the term completely was devalued and acquired the meaning of any information that did not suit the speaker (Davies 2011). However, the real meaning of fake news and its impact on mass consciousness is much deeper than personal delusion.
Fake news is written and spread with the intent to harm an agent, legal entity, or person or to gain financial or political support. It is often published with sensational, exaggerated, or decidedly false headlines that attract attention. Fake news often uses bright headlines or completely fabricated news materials to increase readability, online access, and increase Internet revenue. In the latter case, fake news often has sensational headlines to increase the promotion from advertising produced regardless of the veracity of published stories (Doshi et al. 2018). Fake news is also undermining the serious coverage in the media and interferes with professional journalists.
Easy access to income from online advertising and increased politicization of social networks, primarily from Facebook News Feed, lead to the spread of fake news that is used to ensure competition. States in the confrontation are also involved in the creation and promotion of false news, especially during elections (Allcott & Gentzkow 2017). The researchers recognized the difficulty in determining what exactly applied to fake news. Some define fake news as a subgenre of disinformation, calling it information about the state of the world which is built with disregard for the facts. Fake news misinform, referring to the worst of human nature and simultaneously undermining the truth.
One of the main factors determining how reliable the news is what people have faced before; their experience allows not to believe things that have previously been rejected as false. In one study, participants were presented with a variety of real and fake news, and then they were asked to evaluate the stories accuracy. It is found that familiar fake news stories are considered more accurate than unfamiliar real news stories (Silverman & Singer-Vine 2016). The more people are exposed to fake news, the less they can recognize that it is not true.
The Causes of ‘Fake News’ Emergence
The presence of a large number of fake news is due to the existence of users who have chosen the so-called negative model of behavior on the Internet. It can be just ‘trolls’, or falsifiers — haters and ‘abusers’ or ideological racists and extremists. Fakes have become a mass phenomenon because they are attractive to a large number of users and it also means easy money.
Today’s fake news has swept everyone; it is random information set or created deliberately for a variety of reasons. For example, the news can be spread to divert from the truth, in which the perpetrators of some negative event may be interested. 23% of Americans said they had to spread such kind of lie; 14% knew it was fake and 16% found it out later (Silverman & Singer-Vine 2016). Fake news can also work to change the picture of the world as a whole, undermining its foundations in the weakest places.
For example, the US intelligence community has formulated the goals of Russian cyberattacks against the US presidential elections of 2016 in such words— “to undermine public confidence in the democratic process in America.” (Allcott & Gentzkow 2017, p. 229). As a result, Gallup showed that only 66% of Americans trust the election results (Guess, Nyhan & Reifler 2018). It is not necessary that these interventions had the greatest impact, but they were among those that were aimed at such a result.
‘Fake News’ Created by Bots
Not only people but also so-called social bots are working to create and spread untrue information. These robots produce 60% of online traffic today, which is 20% more than it was in 2015 (Tambini 2017). In this regard, three problems give rise to the active use of bots. It is the distribution of influence between multiple suspicious online accounts, the polarization of political debate, and the intensification of disinformation.
Fake news generates a fake life, and readers are forced to react to it as they were real. Elon Musk sees an even greater danger in the future when artificial intelligence will be able to generate any messages. He says, “robots can start a war by releasing fake news and press releases, faking email accounts and manipulating information. The pen is stronger than the sword.” (Davis 2010, p. 39). Another problem complicating the situation was the political division of the population.
Inside the US, supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties believe different news sources (Yap, Snyder & Drye 2018). This year, they pay more attention to the news than they did in 2017 (Tambini 2017). However, due to the dominant number of fake news, their desire to be aware of finds the wrong expression, and a huge number of people begin to speak and act as they are told by stakeholders.
Why Do Governments Need ‘Fake News’?
The analysis of cyber forces of the governments showed the following directions in their work. First, they generate positive messages that reinforce and support government positions. Israel, for example, is entering into a debate with those who are critical of the state position, for which there are even student scholarships in universities (Tambini 2017). Secondly, such forces are engaged in insulting those who express criticism of the government; political dissidents are often subjected to this attack.
Third, the messages posted may be neutral, although their purpose is to divert attention from the issues under discussion. All this reflects the generation of a huge number of fundamentally negative messages at the output. False news supports the same trend; it is negative news, which is getting more widespread for this reason.
It seems likely that negative news is more important, because readers do not believe positive stories, considering them not natural, but the result of pushing, for example, by PR services. This feeling is partly justified, according to various estimates, 70-80% of messages may be fake positive news (Tambini 2017). The negative news is retold much more than positive, which is provoked by hereditary memory. The awareness of negative information is more important for survival than knowledge of a positive one.
Detection of ‘Fake News’
How to Distinguish ‘Fakes’ and Mistakes?
One of the acute problems is a determination of the differences between a fake and a misconception, which sometimes occur during journalistic investigations. Activists in human rights are afraid that the fight against false news can turn into the limitation of liberty of speech, and this fear has every reason to be true. Officials not only in authoritarian countries are interested in journalists not mentioning their mistakes (Tambini 2017).
As well as in criminal law, arguably, the intent can be a general criterion of lies. If a journalist is truly mistaken, he or she cannot be suspected of fake news, but if it is a proven and initially conscious step aimed at influencing social perception, it is false news. Meanwhile, distributors of fake materials can be either interested participants of the conspiracy or honest people under a strong impression because of the information received. Both professionals and ordinary people are often impulsive and can initially ‘like’ or repost such information and only then weigh all the ‘pros’ and ‘cons.’
Determination of differences is also hampered by the fact that fake information is often sophisticated in its specificity. Fakes are sometimes spread to make the actual news look absurd and to compromise the opposition’s viewpoint. For example, if unwanted information appears in a public space, it can be discredited by publishing additional, clumsily crafted arguments and then by victorious exposing (Shane 2017). As a result, public trust in the original information is reduced, even if the news is completely true.
Criteria for ‘Fake News’
First of all, it is necessary to distinguish fake news used in advertising and PR and fake news as a means of political struggle and propaganda of certain views. Fake news of the first type includes ‘black PR’, intrusive advertising, unfair advertising, or banner ads to infect computers with viruses (Yap, Snyder & Drye 2018). Obsessive, hidden, and false advertising is much more common than real fake news, according to Google (Shane 2017). This side of fake news refers to the sphere of economic competition.
Fake news becomes politically significant when social networks are actively involved in the political struggle. The pre-election agenda or the foreign policy strategy of the state is spread not only through classical media resources, such as newspapers and television but also through real and fake accounts on the network (Lazer et al. 2018). Moreover, the volume and frequency of such information flow significantly exceed the capabilities of classical media.
The source of the news can play a significant role in determining its authenticity. If the source is unknown or pretends to be the popular media, as often happens, the probability of fake increases significantly. Also, untrue news often comes from engaged professionals in propaganda (Ball 2017), whose purpose is to speak on behalf of their party (political or private) and to attack opponents. Such speakers ignore the evidence of the opposite party and try to discredit each of them.
However, his criterion is not universal – it is enough to recall the war of 2003 in Iraq. Minister Mohammed al-Sahaf was talking about the victories of Iraqi troops and refuting the military successes of Americans even when their tanks entered Baghdad (Ball 2017). Later, it turned out that before the war, the world’s leading media believed in fake information about Saddam’s chemical weapons, as well as about Saddam’s ties with al-Qaeda (Kucharski 2016).
At the same time, the sources of fakes were involved persons — for example, Iraqi immigrants who wanted to overthrow Saddam with the help of the United States. Also, civil servants involved in the analysis of this information ignored the news that contradicted their version (Kucharski 2016). The consequences were dramatic, especially for the Iraqis who were victims of the war.
Causes of Believing in ‘Fakes’
The question of why society is willing to absorb fakes, often quite obvious, is fundamental to solve the problem. It may not be just the ineptitude or unwillingness to consider some different opinions — although this problem is also acute. A reader is inwardly ready to adopt doubtful material if it meets his or her ideology or everyday views on the truth (Kucharski 2016). For instance, a defender of liberal viewpoints rather like an article that raises the topic of violating human rights, while the conservative will appreciate news about insulting feelings of believers. Each of them considers the source of such information to be reliable (Kucharski 2016). Consequently, the readers unconsciously contribute to the conscious dissemination of what they object to.
Moreover, fake news would not have received its special position in journalistic discourses and textbooks on political science, if not for the destruction of the monopoly on news from traditionally proven sources, including official ones. People who are accustomed to the vertical spread of news from officials to consumers, were not ready for the opposite option when news from a private account is replicated by well-known media, often without verification (Ball 2017).
This creates the effect of suggestion, when the same lie, broadcast by different sources, is transmitted from user to user, becoming more plausible along the way. The direct belief in fake news also arises because the Internet is considered a free information space, connected neither by international nor by national censorship (Yap, Snyder & Drye 2018). These factors, which determine the freedom of communication, help users to believe and newsmakers to manipulate.
There are websites on the Internet with pranks that publish fake information. They differ from the apparent attackers in explanation of the frivolity of publications but made not too noticeable so that it is not immediately evident to the reader. The materials of these sites are actively distributed in social networks without any special incentive, but because they correspond to the views of readers.
‘Fake News’ as a Radically New Threat
Why is This Dangerous?
Comfort zone and the habit of bringing new information under the existing stereotypes work in favor of the creators of fake news. Subconsciously finding confirmation of their guesses, habits, political beliefs, people are no longer inclined to reflect on their truth (Ball 2017). At this point, their self-confidence increases, and everyone is more satisfied with the result of self-identification than doubt about it (Viner 2016).
The ‘post-truth’ effect is based on the human psyche structure (Yap, Snyder & Drye 2018). The truth does not cause the emotional response after the initial euphoria of the news, which arose in response to fake information (McNair, Bruns & Schapals 2018). On the contrary, there is an annoyance with themselves and — most importantly — with those who discovered the truth and infringed on the stability of a personal worldview.
It is difficult for people to accept the idea that their basic beliefs may be wrong. That is why the emergence of fake news is one of the main threats to human freedom and security. Most people refuse to see this problem and consider it far from themselves (McNair, Bruns & Schapals 2018). Meanwhile, in the 21st century, this weapon has brought society a lot of troubles and destructions.
Ways to Prevent ‘Fake News’
Experts suggest two main scenarios for improving this complicated situation. These are tighter control by the state, which is fraught with the abandonment of freedom of speech, and the introduction of technological solutions, for example, automatic blocking of fake news or supplying them with appropriate labels (McNair, Bruns & Schapals 2018). However, there is always a possibility that the distributors of the negative in the network go to the closed part of the Internet. At the same time, it seems that the only correct strategy for readers today is to try not to trust anonymous news. If the news has an author and the falseness of the publication is proved, the author should be treated by the current legislation.
Of course, no total censorship of the Internet and the media can be a solution. The idea of responsibility for news content has become a basic requirement for individuals and countries in a state of an information war. Usually, structures of the foreign Ministries are engaged in the fight against fake news discrediting the state (UK Parliament 2018). Also, the requirements for the regulation of fake content were presented to Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major social networks and news platforms (Yap, Snyder & Drye 2018).
Fact-checking technologies are used to block questionable news; it is the verification of facts through additional editorial control department on the complaints of readers. Facebook has hired four companies: Snopes, Politifact, ABC News, and FactCheck.org, which manually check the accuracy of the news appearing on the feed (Viner 2016). If the content is suspicious, users will see a warning about it, asking if they want to repost.
Scientists investigating the phenomenon of fake news and ‘post-truth’ in American and British universities offer different ways to solve the problem. Their solution can be reduced to the development and provision of resources for users to produce independent verification of the facts (Ball 2017). Even in this case, they note the deep skepticism of the population about the official sources that will be contained in these resources. In general, the researchers come to a disappointing conclusion: people are not ready for a conscious and comprehensive approach to evaluating the read news, and stakeholders take advantage of it.
Conclusion
Only dealing with fake news by the legislative approach will not bring significant positive results, taking into account that there is a risk of going too far in prohibitions. People who want to know the truth should be more attentive to details and capable of critical thinking. Also, to save the media source from lies, it is very important to pay attention to the other opinions without denying the reasoning of the opposite side in advance; to debate not through warlike speeches, but dialogues, maybe sometimes emotional. This way the heat of passion is reduced and the damage caused by the popularisation of fake news gets insignificant.
Another effective way to deal with fake news is the joint efforts of all influential parties: governments, representatives of IT companies, and public and journalistic organizations. The essential stakeholder is the people themselves – the key consumer of information and the main victim. To achieve this goal, several more serious issues must be resolved, such as the provision of a high level of education, intercultural education, and the reduction of ethnic and racial tensions.
Reference List
Allcott, H & Gentzkow, M 2017, ‘Social media and fake news in the 2016 election’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 211-236.
Ball, J 2017, Post-truth: how bullshit conquered the world, Biteback Publishing, London.
Davies, N 2011, Flat earth news: an award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media, Chatto & Windus, London.
Davis, A 2010, Political communication and social theory, Routledge, London.
Doshi, A, Raghavan, S, Petitt, E & Weiss, R 2018, ‘The economics of fake news: consumer behavior during the 2016 election’, Academy of Management Global Proceedings, no. 2018, p. 61.
Guess, A, Nyhan, B & Reifler, J 2018, ‘Selective exposure to misinformation: evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign’, European Research Council, pp. 1-14.
Kucharski, A 2016, ‘Post-truth: study epidemiology of fake news’, Nature, vol. 540, p. 525.
Lazer, DM, Baum, MA, Benkler, Y, Berinsky, AJ, Greenhill, KM, Menczer, F, Schudson, M, Metzger, MJ, Nyhan, B, Pennycook, G, Rothschild, D, Sloman, SA, Sunstein, CR, Thorson, EA, Watts, DJ & Zittrain, JL, 2018, ‘The science of fake news’, Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, pp. 1094-1096.
McNair, B, Bruns, A & Schapals, AK 2018, ‘Fake news and democratic culture’, in Digitizing Democracy, Routledge, London, pp. 19-29.
Shane, S 2017, ‘From headline to photograph, a fake news masterpiece’, The New York Times. Web.
Silverman, C & Singer-Vine, J 2016, ‘Most Americans who see fake news believe it, new survey says’, BuzzFeed News. Web.
Tambini, D 2017, Fake News: Public Policy Responses. Web.
UK Parliament 2018, Disinformation and ‘fake news’. Web.
Viner, K 2016, ‘How technology disrupted the truth’, The Guardian. Web.
Yap, A, Snyder, LG & Drye, S 2018, ‘The information war in the digital society: a conceptual framework for a comprehensive solution to fake news’, Academy of Social Science Journal, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 1214-1221.