It’s time we all accept this universal truth: “fake news” does not exist — at least not in its conventional definition.
When I hear someone say the phrase, I cringe a little. It’s not that I’m naive enough to think false information doesn’t exist in the world. I know the dissemination of it has gotten increasingly worse over the past decade as the world becomes more interconnected through platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Never before have billions of people had such accessible communication channels at their fingertips, and some have undoubtedly used those channels to spread lies that appear legitimate.
My issue with the term “fake news” is one of semantics. The phrase doesn’t accurately represent what it describes, and it has damaging consequences.
As a journalism student, I’ve learned that words matter. To create the most accurate story, one must use words that precisely convey what one is trying to express. “Fake news” does not do that.
For starters, the word “news” by itself implies truth. Though Merriam-Webster defines “news” as “a report of recent events” with no contingency that the report must be truthful, it’s generally understood and expected that news should be accurate and credible.
You wouldn’t say something is “fake true,” because the English language, despite its flaws, already provides a convenient word for that: “false.”
I suggest we as a society move to call “fake news” what it really is. Terms like “disinformation,” which describes false information that is deliberate and malicious, and “misinformation,” which describes false information that is accidental or incomplete, are more accurate and precise terms than “fake news." But of course, those terms don’t provide the fear factor that “fake news” does.
The saying has developed into a popular mantra hurled at news that people, particularly politicians, don’t like in an effort to discredit it, according to the University of California Santa Barbara. Though the first instance of “fake news” being used as a phrase dates back to the 1890s, according to Merriam-Webster, it was famously used by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 Presidential Election and popularized by Trump after he was elected.
Another problem with saying something is “fake news” is that it damages the reputation of journalism altogether. People often associate the word “news” with journalists and reporters, and rightly so. But saying something is “fake news” when it comes from any place other than an actual news site discredits the principles of accountability and transparency that journalists are taught to uphold. How can something be called “fake news” if it’s not coming from a legitimate news site?
The substance of “fake news” certainly exists, but it’s wrongly labeled. Apt descriptors like “disinformation” and “misinformation” can clear up a lot of confusion and keep “fake news” from being a catch-all term for whatever people believe is inaccurate.
News is news, it can’t be faked.
Ryan Maxin is a junior studying journalism at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnist do not reflect those of The Post. What are your thoughts? Let Ryan know by tweeting him @ryanmaxin.
