How did we get to this “fake news” point and is it improving? Can it?

[Scout]

The godfather of fake news - BBC News

One idiot with a computer.

 

[Alma]

It probably starts with a discussion on the nature of truth. So long as everyone gets to have "his" or "her" truth, you're going to have endless spins on the same facts. Or we start calling things like "being an ashhole" a syndrome or condition of some kind. There's a psychological fact or excuse for just about everything now. Basic biological truths - the most obvious things - are now in question because, hey, human brain.

Getting rid of 95 percent of anonymous sources would help. Journalism is far too reliant on them at this point. People actually believe journalists make these people up. They don't. But I do think, when we allow so many conversations to go on background or anonymously sourced we're letting the sources off the hook a bit. A simple question - "so, if this were on the record and your name was attached to it, you'd say the exact same thing?" - would help prune the lies back a bit, but not enough.

Facebook and Twitter could go away. that'd help.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

It's going to get worse before it gets better.
Breaking News | Radiolab | WNYC Studios

 

[cyclingwriter2]

This is a great question. I like to think that journalism goes in cycles. If you think back to the days of "yellow journalism," it's easy to see that the industry rebounded from that. Then there was a nice run of trusting the media until the 1960s when years of journalistic neglect coupled with a rise in television led to a dimming of trust. Watergate pushed it back to journalists as truth.

Can the industry/profession rebound again? Likely not anytime soon nor in a way we would recognize it. It's too easy to find "channels" that just allow people to follow their own world view.

 

[Tweener]

It probably starts with a discussion on the nature of truth. So long as everyone gets to have "his" or "her" truth, you're going to have endless spins on the same facts. Or we start calling things like "being an ashhole" a syndrome or condition of some kind. There's a psychological fact or excuse for just about everything now. Basic biological truths - the most obvious things - are now in question because, hey, human brain.

Getting rid of 95 percent of anonymous sources would help. Journalism is far too reliant on them at this point. People actually believe journalists make these people up. They don't. But I do think, when we allow so many conversations to go on background or anonymously sourced we're letting the sources off the hook a bit. A simple question - "so, if this were on the record and your name was attached to it, you'd say the exact same thing?" - would help prune the lies back a bit, but not enough.

Facebook and Twitter could go away. that'd help.

Our shop does not allow reporters to use anonymous sources for this very reason. I remember a politics reporter joined our newsroom earlier this year and found a big story from a source who requested anonymity. Our executive editor said that we needed the source on the record or we weren't running it. Sure enough, it never ran. It wasn't worth the risk of being even partially wrong.

Not every story needs multiple sources, but most should have at least one on the record. I think that rule has largely fallen by the wayside and it's made for some sloppy reporting. Even if 8/10 times the story is completely accurate with one source, being right just 80 percent of the time is not good enough. Not at a time when the president is calling journalists the enemy and their credibility is perhaps at an all-time low.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

The great majority are doing this correctly, even well. Problem is, when one slips up and fabricates sources, quotes or information in general, that journalistic fabric is breached just enough to give those who cannot wait "FAKE NEWS!" grist for their mills.

The great majority who scream "Fake news!" are buying into a ridiculous narrative, but that's strictly my opinion. Yours, as with just about anything else, may vary.

FWIW, anonymous sources need to go away. This is how people, especially those who work in newsrooms, jump to conclusion, erode credibility and slowly break down what many on this board protect professionally and personally. Eventually, people will figure out who is flinging crap against the wall just to see what sticks. Eventually.

 

[qtlaw]

I thought we were the most educated country in the world?

As Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes said "Wake up Everbody, no more sleeping in bed"!

People need to say I won't accept lies and half truths, they need to go past the headline and read for themselves, what is the support for the conclusion?

People have said "I can read for myself", yes well you've done a poor job this last decade or so.

 

[Hermes]

As for anonymous sources, we as an industry used them in such trivial matters, such fluff that we ruined the few times in a career they're necessary and important enough to use.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

As for anonymous sources, we as an industry used them in such trivial matters, such fluff that we ruined the few times in a career they're necessary and important enough to use.

Yup. Instead of becoming the exception for key stories, the bar has been lowered so much that it becomes the rule for crap that - relatively speaking - does not matter.

 

[Starman]

One thing that should always be made clear to any prospective anonymous source: "If you're lying to me, I'll burn your ash to the moon."

 

[SoloFlyer]

Cable news needs to be held to a higher standard. Whether it's CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or someone else, there needs to be a much clearer delineation between news and opinion. Fewer pundits, more experts with specific credentials.

This goes for newspapers, as well. Every opinion or analytical piece should be labeled as such, especially on social media. The Washington Post usually does a decent job of that but it's not always consistent and other outlets fail miserably in this regard.

News outlets should also peel back the curtain a bit. Explain the anonymous source process. Too many readers believe the sources are anonymous even to the newspaper when that's simply not the case.

Being transparent is a crucial step, especially in an age when transparency is so hard to come by from the corporations and politicians newspapers are covering.

 

[Slacker]

Another problem with making a habit of using an anonymous source arises often because such a source typically is "identified" as "someone close to the case who is not authorized to comment on it publicly."

Awkward disclaimer, and then the critics see it and scream: "THEN WHY QUOTE HIM? HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED!!!"

And then they turn on the media, and then someone calls them the Enemy of the People, and here we are today.