All this excitement about "fake news" has me puzzled, it seems like there are two kinds of fake news.
The "bad" kind is when some fringe media outlet or blog comes out with an unverified, unsourced, story that is pretty unrealistic and that story gets spread via social media by folks who don't actually read it, don't actually check it out and are just gullible enough to pass it on uncritically.
The "good" kind is where that "mainstream" media latches on to some narrative that furthers their political agenda and continues to run with it even after it is proven to be false. Some examples.
"Hands up, Don't shoot."
"The gentle giant"
"I flew in under sniper fire"
I'm sure there are plenty more, but those make my point.
So, why is "fake news" applauded, encouraged, and perpetuated when it suits one side of the political aisle, even when the objective literal reality is false?
EDIT
"The Russians hacked the electrical grid"
"The Russians hacked the election"
2 comments:
The answer is in the question. Fake news benefits those who perpetuate the fake news. The left is particularly benefited by furthering less than accurate notions, such as "the greedy rich" or "tax policy that benefits only the rich", or "white privilege" or "war monger/fear monger" or "anti-science right wingers" or any of a host of demonizing and denigrating falsehoods.
Of course you are correct. It's just one more of those ironies that those who decry "fake news" have staked so much of their political strategies on fake news. Also, those mainstream media outlets have been perpetuating "fake news" as a way to shape the political narrative.
Post a Comment