The recent hearing in Congress attended by so-called bloggers and vloggers identified mostly with the Duterte camp exposed our lawmakers’ limited knowledge of what traditional journalism is and the bloggers and vloggers’ lack of understanding of what journalism is. This can be seen in the bloggers and vloggers calling themselves journalists and lawmakers treating them like they are.
Of course, the bloggers and vloggers are not journalists but are even labelled as purveyors of “fake news” that, in recent times, mean spreading half-truths and outright lies. Fake news nowadays is not about the form but about content.
Traditional journalists treat news articles differently from opinion pieces. Social media creators do not know the difference between a news item and an opinion piece. Thus, an article is called “fake news” even if it is not, properly, news. When a social media post peddles lies, it is called “fake news” even if it is written in a form that journalists do not consider “news.” Thus, a proper definition of “fake news” should be made.
But I do not agree with one vlogger’s claim that fake news can only be temporarily fake and could be considered true later, citing the case of Galileo. The contention that the earth is flat stemmed not from something malicious but was a product of man’s limited knowledge. It was not fake news like we know today, which is the spreading of lies with malicious intent. By believing that fake news can be true later, we weaken the fight against the spread of fake news.
I consider the technology that gave birth to social media as “democratizing.” Unlike before, when only a few practitioners are allowed to spread information, people now can use social media tools even if they do not know how to use these properly or are not prepared well to wield them. Social media users can be reporters and opinion makers by simply using the currently available tools. They call themselves journalists even if they are ill-equipped to be one.
Because in the past, only a few practitioners could be reporters, editors and opinion-makers, they were easier to regulate. Throughout the decades of journalism’s evolution, ethical standards have been put in place and laws preventing the malicious use of journalism were enacted. That is so far difficult to duplicate in social media because of the ready availability of the technology. The democratizing push of the new technology destroyed the setup patiently built by journalists, media owners and the government throughout the decades,
Some journalists are trying to pick up the slack by becoming “fact checkers” or organizing fact checking groups to stem the spread of ‘fake news.” But the democratizing effect of the new technology is so pervasive that fact checkers either get drowned by the amount of false information being spread or get discouraged and quit altogether.
I believe though that things will eventually settle and social media will eventually be put to a better and more productive use.