‘Fake news’ is not the issue

There’s a lot of talk about ‘fake news’. Actually, there’s far too much talk about it – so much so that the phrase is rapidly losing what little meaning it once had.

However, I don’t believe ‘fake news’ is the problem – it is the symptom. In fact, it’s several symptoms of several problems.

Let’s first look at the different things that are labelled as ‘fake news’:

• A politician that disagrees with a negative article and dismisses at as ‘fake news’.
• Coordinated political campaigns that try to sway public opinion (usually through playing on the fears of the target group).
• Data harvesting campaigns that capture personal details.
• Clickbait campaigns that want to drive more ad views (or to generate links or user comments or social shares, etc).
• And good old fashioned trolling campaigns.

There are a broad range of motivations behind these activities – are we really saying that they should all be grouped together?

The common ground is fear

Fear is a compelling force – it drives us to make rash decisions, whether that be to book that hotel room right now because there aren’t many left, or to vote for a political party that we might otherwise not.

Other emotions, can of course be just as powerful in some situations, but can rarely be controlled as readily as fear can. This has led to fear becoming a primary tool in political marketing (and within the sphere of influence of these campaigns, media organisations profit a great deal).

It these same organisations that are now pointing towards ‘fake news’ and are pushing for action to be taken. Indeed, today William Hague is demanding that social media ban political ads.

People are increasingly living in an echo chamber of their own views, being sent more opinions that they already like, more news — true or false — that they are inclined to believe, and more adverts that target their particular worries or prejudices

That’s an easy campaign to get behind. After all, we’ve seen the impact that political marketing on social media can have. But, it’s hardly a selfless piece of advice from one of our politicians.

‘Fake news’ isn’t a new thing

Below is one of the adverts that the Vote Leave campaign are being criticised for. There are others like this, but they all work in a similar way – they encourage people to make a choice (of course, the choice is already made with the imagery and copy) and after that those people fall into easily categorised marketing groups.

The retargeting aspect of the campaign is what is getting attention right now – the people who clicked one of the options would then be exposed to tailored campaign messages.

But what about the antagonist and alarmist tone of the message? This isn’t new – political parties have been marketing this way for generations. Why is it that the advert above is unacceptable, but the one below – paid for and devised by our current government – is seemingly fine?

The latter was a social meme more than a paid advert, but others like it were on billboards and other media in key constituencies.

It seems counter-intuitive that a party campaigning to become the “UK” government has went out with a message that’s offensive to part of the population and plays on the prejudice and fears of others. But it’s effective, and there are seemingly no moral qualms about running a campaign like this.

I’ve seen instances of political party leaflets being put through doors, where the quotes from “local people” were faked – same leaflet, different town had the same quotes attributed to different “local residents”. This was during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. At least then people had social media to be able to compare notes. In 2004, only the early adopters would have been doing so. And in 1994? It’s unlikely that any local resident would have compared notes with a random political flyer from another town. In 1984, well…

Driving home a particular message is effective

Politicians and the media have excelled at this for generations and it works. They define the narrative which becomes the baseline for a particular conversation, forcing other parties to defend, justify or otherwise conform their opinions. Nothing like pushing the competition onto the back foot to give you an edge.

But, it’s so easy for the average person to shrug off the impact of these activities.

“Not me”

“I’m not affected by advertising”

“The multi-billion pound industry that is the basis for most businesses and makes or breaks governments, definitely doesn’t affect me…”

And it’s so easy for those manipulating the system to play along with this narrative, deriding naysayers and shrugging off their protestations as paranoia…and fake news.

The reality is simple – information is power

And we’re now experiencing a shift in that power. The few who have traditionally controlled the information – politicians and traditional media – are now losing their grasp on it. Perhaps their fear of new technology has left them hesitant to adopt it, or perhaps they’ve always known what it means for them.

Now, anyone can become a media manipulator…an influencer. And many are better at it than those who have traditionally occupied that role.

Everyone from a single person, a group of people with a shared interest or agenda, or even a foreign power can wield the level of influence that was once domain of the rich and powerful.

It is this broad group of people that are now labelled as the perpetrators of ‘fake news’. From benign trolling (the revival of Flat Earthers are rumoured to be nothing more than a trolling exercise) to brutal character assassinations (e.g. pizzagate) – of course there is a clear impact on our society.

But the platforms aren’t the source of those problems.

Tech giants have a responsibility, but aren’t solely responsible

Social media platforms are an easy target, particularly when their ever-evolving ideas and technology are alien to portions of the population.

And yes, they do have a responsibility to mitigate the negative way their systems are exploited.

And yes, I do think that there needs to be more transparency when it comes to political advertising (across the board, not just on social media). The recent recommendations by MPs seem sensible (more so than William Hague’s desire to ban ads altogether):

• creating a public register for political advertising so that anybody can see what messages are being distributed
• online political advertisements should have a digital imprint stating who was responsible, as is required with printed leaflets and advertisements
• social media sites should be held responsible for interference in elections by malicious actors
• electoral fraud fines should be increased from a maximum of £20,000 to a percentage of an organisations’ annual turnover

But I do think we need to consider the approach of political marketing as a whole, and not just the parts that are forcing political parties onto their back foot.

Large organisations often create new roles to accommodate changes to how they operate. Financial institutions have Compliance Officers to ensure they adhere to complex international laws. Law firms have Complaints Handling Partners to help them resolve inbound complaints. Large companies have Information Officers to protect the integrity of their data.

Should social media platforms consider a new role to manage this emerging situation? Perhaps Facebook needs an Ethics Officer?

Maybe so. But if they do, then the politicians and the media who have built their existence on the back of manipulation, fear-mongering and ‘fake news’ should also receive an ethical enema – one self-administered would of course be preferable, but there are plenty waiting in the wings to help out if needed (The Ferret does a fantastic job on this front).

The thing is…the same technology that is the vehicle for ‘fake news’, is also the means by which we combat it, so losing that ability would only benefit a select few.

We may be increasingly living in an “echo chamber of our own views“, but we’re also learning to challenge the validity of what we read and what we’re being told. That’s a good thing.