Is it just me? Or is Fake News a thing?
First off, I'm not interested in any specific interpretation of the term in that it applies to politics directly, which I delved into on my previous post. I'm going to start by asking a few questions and then see if I get anywhere. I'm going to attempt to put into practice some of the things I've learned thus far with my recent interest in Philosophy and by many degrees, I'm no expert, just a curious person who hopes to always ask why.
My first question is. What is "fake"? Is it an imitation? Is it the opposite of real?. See where I'm going here. We have a variety of definitions of the word "fake" so it's important to define the context in which we use it. Can we agree on that? Then, it would only make sense to do the same thing with the word "news" so that we can come to a common understanding, and hopefully an agreeable one, with consensus as to what the whole term means. For the sake of this argument I'll use the term "fake" to mean the opposite of "real" and "news" to mean differing views of opinions and events.
To add a little bit more perspective, I was watching some political pundits and I think I've found some context for the term. Now it's hard not to gravitate too far away from politics, because the term is, I believe, purely political. I've deduced that the growth of Facebook and availability and variety of information on the Internet is the reason behind why we keep hearing the term "fake News". Even in Malaysia, where I reside, I've heard it used by politicians. Now to put this context into perspective, I will ask the following question.
Is "fake news" a byproduct of corporations resistant to change?
Now we've concluded that "fake news" is a term that seems to be mainly directed at content available through different social media sites on the Internet. Can we agree on that? What content is not that important. Now there are a few places we can go from here, but I'd like to explore the intent behind the term and how it relates to the question. Is "fake news" a byproduct of corporations resistant to change? It's safe to say these corporations are news related, so that would mean traditional media and online media. So who might have the motivation to coin the term "fake news" and why? How does this relate to change? Some might say that in the corporate world, if you don't embrace change you will die. So if either the traditional or online media felt threatened, and resisting of change, which would have more motivation to pursue the term? Of course, there could be all kinds of motivations for a corporation to espouse a "fake news" campaign but it seems fair to say that their motives are interlinked both politically and financially, because even the traditional media corporations are also relevant in the online space, aligned with certain political parties and be interested in making money.
I conclude by saying that "fake news" is not simply a piece of information someone should not believe, but rather a campaign led by traditional media corporations to put into question views and perspectives they don't agree with and can't control. The reason why? I'll leave that to you.
Are you a part of my "echo chamber"?
Yes you are! And I'd very much appreciate the upvote if you've made it this far! Just kidding. No, but really. Ok! I'm not sure why I wanted to dig myself a deeper hole by including the topic of the echo chamber. But I guess my point is that it's important not to fall victim to fake news within your echo chamber. No, kidding again! It's important to look at what's happening within your echo chamber, specifically on the Internet, and open yourself up to asking as many questions that begin with Why until you're satisfied!
Day Eleven
The End