My Take | Short of censorship, legislation may be the only way to fight fake news
- Deliberate disinformation is the by-product of, or parasitic on, free speech as it can be amplified and multiplied uncontrollably by social media at warp speed
People fret about fake news and the danger it represents. Others think censoring it is even worse. But I think calling the problem fake news is a mischaracterisation. (We are stuck with it, though!) The real issue is deliberately biased or manipulated news; and what to do about it. In other words, my news is true news but your news is biased and therefore fake.
It can become a political time bomb when biased or manipulated news is systematically produced and spread to fit an overall narrative or an ideology. This is a big problem for any society and government, whether democratic or authoritarian. That’s why both democracies and authoritarian governments around the world have been working to legislate against fake news, as is the case with Hong Kong and many countries in Asia.
If something is fake, it means it’s false, untrue or contrary to the actual state of affairs. It can be a lie, a factual misstatement or an outright falsehood. There are many ways to address or correct fake news, from libel lawsuits to letters to the editor. While it can cause a lot of real-life damage, I don’t find it intellectually interesting or morally challenging.
Neither is dressing up biases as true (if you believe in them) or false (if you don’t, or if your opponent subscribes to them).
What I think is uniquely damaging and dangerous in our age is that such biases are amplified and multiplied online via social media. Once a biased/fake news item has gone viral, it’s like a wildfire that’s difficult, sometimes impossible, to put out. It becomes a real problem when it coalesces systematically to form a coherent narrative, or as they say, a version of “reality”. For example, former US president Donald Trump famously called every news item he didn’t like “fake news”. He was perfectly happy to spread his own news versions, which were readily taken up and spread by his faithful followers.
Yes, I blame social media. The problem, of course, has always existed with traditional media, but on a more manageable scale. Those media such as radio, television and print have centralised editorial control, whether by senior editors who fancy themselves guardians of the truth and the public good; or by government censors, who also claim to be working in the moral interest of the public. They may be right or wrong, but they are few in numbers.