Modern-day technology ensures that we have more information than ever before -- so why can't we all agree on the "truth"?
It is irrefutable that much of the public's political knowledge comes from the media in today's world. Whether it is social media, broadcast television programmes, or even good old-fashioned newsprint, humans depend on journalists to keep them informed about current events. Still, it seems that, in recent years, the media has rapidly evolved along with technological advances, with people from different sides disagreeing on the notion of "truth". As a result, there are two major players in the rise of fake news: the producers -- large media corporations, news outlets and even tech companies -- and the consumers, the people who consume the news the producers create.
The danger lies in that if people are not well-informed, then democracy, too, might not be well-informed and instead be subjected to decay. In other words, fake news is not only a threat to its citizens but also democratic nations themselves.
The main incentive for most news producers is relatively simple: money. Nowadays, media corporations have been acting more like big businesses rather than journalistic platforms, which may be the reason why only "36% in the US have a 'great deal' or 'fair amount' of trust in mass media".
Fake news has been with us before. In the much credited book Truth Decay, there are three significant examples of the rise of "fake news" in history: "yellow journalism" during the Gilded Age, "jazz journalism" during the Great Depression, and "New Journalism" during the Vietnam War. These historical examples come from politically divisive times in American culture, and major news outlets were competing for viewership to increase their profits.
The well-known conservative outlet, Fox News, is a good example of how profits are a significant incentive for news. Because of the competitive nature of the business and their already-established consumer base, Fox News cannot afford to lose its major Republican viewership since they drive most of the profits. Therefore, it needs to create more politically conservative content to continue developing its viewers' trust, even though the information may not be accurate.
Politically "moderate" outlets -- namely The New York Times or The Economist, rarely known as "fake news" mongers -- also have their own dilemma. These news corporations, need to create "unbiased" information to fit Google's algorithm, which prefers trustworthy publications.
In that sense, money still incentivises "moderate" news corporations. Even though these companies may try to follow their adage of putting journalistic truth at the fore, they may also accidentally publish misinformation. To compete with "current events" offered content in social media, such as Twitter or TikTok, there is more pressure to publish articles earlier, which increases the likelihood of misinformation.
Consumers also play a role -- albeit unknowingly -- in incentivising the producers to publish misleading news.
Republicans, for instance, are more likely to value loyalty and authority, whereas Democrats are more likely to appreciate care and justice. They will support news outlets which are aligned with their values, which may explain why people choose the news sources they choose. It would also explain Tucker Carlson's rise in recent years as he purposefully provides right-wing political knowledge. The producers knowingly pander to the consumers' tribalistic needs, making them trust the conservative outlet more, and less likely to turn to a more "moderate" or "left-wing" source that would not give them as much satisfaction.
The rapid rise of unreliable news can also be largely attributed to the equally rapid rise of social media sites where consumers can easily discover like-minded peers.
A significant example of how social media may make people blindly follow others comes from former US president Donald Trump, and his Twitter page, which has since been shut down. Mr Trump is known for posting frequently and publicly about his thoughts on everything, especially news outlets. On March 13, 2016, he tweeted, "The failing @nytimes is truly one of the worst newspapers", an ad hominem attack on the Times. On Sept 16, 2018, he tweeted, "Watch @MariaBartiromo at 6:00 P.M. on @FoxBusiness. Russian Hoax the big topic! Mainstream Media often referred to as the fake news media hates to discuss the real facts!" Because of these two tweets, Mr Trump's supporters and followers were more likely to follow his lead, choosing sources the president approved. Humans' natural tribalism instinct, combined with social media, make it harder to deliver well-informed facts, and easier to provide biased information. No matter what the content is, consumers will only read what makes them feel good and self-reassured.
In simpler terms, like a vicious cycle that end up consuming itself, consumers will only read news which are aligned with their predilections, while news producers and journalists just cater to their readers' expectation. This is why fake news flourishes and democracy withers.
Reversing the trend will take a lot of work. News producers must be committed to the truth, and consumers must make the effort by leaving their echo chambers, consuming news that upsets them or is even against their beliefs.
Olya Sukonrat is a Bangkok-born-and-raised writer based in New York City. Previously, she has worked for the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Olya is currently pursuing a bachelor's degree at Columbia University in English literature and evolutionary biology of the human species.