‘Fake news’ has become a commonly used jargon nowadays to describe fictitious and sometimes sensational stories published in mainstream media or circulated in social media. It has since evolved into something that is frequently used to label a story which is seen as damaging to an agency, entity, or person.
Simply put, when a legitimate news story or hard-hitting commentary is not well received, it is immediately considered a “fake news.” Political stories are the most prone to this unfair labelling.
The series of hearings led by Senate committee on public information and mass media has thoroughly discussed the issue of fake news, its negative impacts, and possible means to stop it, and yet it miserably failed to get to the heart of the matter first, and that is knowing what fake news is.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines fake news as “false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke.”
The Collins English Dictionary, on the other hand, described it in even simpler terms: “false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting.”
And yet here we still do not have a clear and precise legal definition of what fake news is, subjecting legitimate news outlets and journalists to unjust labelling and name-calling.
In the mainstream media, a news story that has factual errors or discrepancies caused by incompetent reporting is also tagged as fake news. Such is the case of the news story of the seven senators who complained to have been excluded in the signing of Senate Resolution No. 516 condemning the extrajudicial killings of minors, for which the “Silent No More” Facebook page criticized them for “purposely” refusing to sign the resolution.
Furiously, the aggrieved senators claimed it was fake news.
The controversial blog, however, cannot be considered fake news based on the accepted definition of what fake news is because it was an opinion piece which is subject to the writer’s prejudice, interpretation, and motivation. It is not news, which means it cannot be called “fake news.”
Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson has also complained she was a victim of fake news when the news item she complained about merely failed to get her side and clarify an information provided by a news source.
Moreover, the problem is not only about definition but differentiation.
Fake news is clearly a world’s away distinct from a news parody, news satire, and propaganda, all of which can easily pass off as a news story and misinterpreted by many as facts.
In journalism, satire pokes fun at the news, or uses parody portrayed as conventional news.
While satirical news is defined by its comedic nature, using deadpan humor to create what is called “fake news,” its underlying objective is to make statements about real people, events, and trends, often with the intent of influencing change, according to Marisa Lubeck’s “A Satire of News.”
In conclusion, efforts to stop the proliferation of fake news and misinformation in the social media will not be effective unless our policymakers can come up with a definition of what constitutes fake news.
The definition and differentiation could mean the difference between preventing the spread of false information and suppressing the people’s Constitutionally-protected freedom of expression.
Armand Dean Nocum is a former journalist.
