Travis Hoge

4/11/06

MSTD335

Essay: Fake News

There are many different issues and many different questions involved in the simple question of “Should media audiences accept fake news?”. What is considered “fake news”? How is the “fake news” recognized? What is meant by “accepting” it? There is a huge difference between accepting information and believing and acting on information. If by accepting fake news, it means that the audience will absorb the information and form their opinions and beliefs based upon it, then no, media audiences should not accept fake news. But if what is actually meant is along the lines of simply hearing it, throwing it aside, and classifying it as either propaganda or someone’s opinion, then yes, media audiences should accept fake news. Because it is better to hear as many opinions as possible than to be ill-advised and uneducated.

In order for the common public to form opinions on issues and problems in our society, information must be given out to them. The news media’s main purpose in life is to educate and inform the public of the recent facts and situations otherwise known as news. Nowhere in the definition of a news journalist is there anything about writing opinions or being biased or showing prejudice or anything of that sort. Video news releases, or VNR’s, are obvious and blatant examples of government propaganda and bias.

Video news releases are not news. It’s as easy as that. As stated in the opening section of Chapter 10 of “Media Debates”, “…news is determined by editors and that editors’ (or other gatekeepers) judgments should, in fact, decide what is news. The main problem with the media today is that many stations operate with a staff made up of inexperienced, under-trained, and overworked people” (Libin, 2005). It is the responsibility of the producer or director of the program to decide what is or isn’t newsworthy. However, sometimes, when a public relations committee from the government offers an already-made news package, sometimes producers find it extremely hard to resist. The main problem with these packages is that they are “laughably lopsided” and “devoid of the diverse voices and perspectives that enrich real journalism, enabling its consumers to reach informed opinions of their own and to make better decisions for themselves” (Libin, 2005).

In April of 2005, the Federal Communications Commission said “television broadcasters must disclose to viewers the origin of video news releases produced by the government or corporations when the material runs on the public airwaves” (Ahrens, 2005). As a result of this, media audiences can now watch the public relations’ propaganda everywhere, but now they are informed of its source. So to answer the question, “should media audiences accept fake news?”, yes they should, as long as they know where it came from and who wrote it. And since the FCC passed this recent ruling requiring stations to disclose sources of VNR’s, this will no longer be a problem. Any newscast that is produced and funded by any federal organization should be accepted, but overlooked as an opinion and not a fact. “The first obligation of journalism is to the reader, viewer, or listener. The first obligation of public relations is to the client. And when the client is the government, which journalists claim to cover with independence and integrity, the distinction becomes critical” (Libin, 2005).

References

Ahrens, F. (2005, April 14). Broadcasters Must Reveal Video Clips' Sources, FCC Says. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2006, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51375-2005Apr13?language=printer

Dennis, E. E., & Merrill, J. C. (2006). Deciding What is News. Media Debates: Great Issues for the Digital Age (pp. 110-122). Canada: Thomas Wadsworth.

Libin, S. M. (2005, March 15). Poynteronline. Retrieved April 11, 2006, from http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=79766