The Pope backs a Trump presidency. Even for those who don’t
pay close attention to what Pope Francis says, either on Twitter or elsewhere,
it’s unlikely given many of the statements the now President-elect Trump made
during the campaign that the Pontiff would have expressed such an endorsement.
However, this of course is what happened. Whether people saw it through
Facebook or on other forms of social media, it is estimated around 30 million
Americans saw this headline. Even when the Vatican was forced to deny the
claim, the response was supposedly only seen by around 10 per cent of the
original story. Facts have all of a sudden become blurred and it’s becoming
exceptionally difficult to persuade people on the truth otherwise.
We’ve all become aware of the so-called ‘post-truth’ world
where facts are subordinate to emotions. Michael Gove famously said during the
EU referendum campaign that people were fed up of listening to experts. Even
when the Bank of England, OECD and the Government were telling voters that they
were better off than before the economic downturn of 2008, a lot of people
simply assessed their own lives rather than the numbers to make their own
judgement. Opinions often hold stronger political capital than the facts and
arguably, since the economic crash, who can blame them.
People could argue that ‘fake news’ has always existed. If a
football team loses, how often have we heard the losing manager blame the
officials to set a different news agenda? In the real world, to what extent are
companies, newspapers or politicians using spin, contriving their story to suit
an agenda of their own? They all do, however, these examples are all
accountable in some shape or form. Companies to their shareholders and
customers, newspapers to their readers and the law and government ultimately to
the electorate and Parliament.
There is nothing wrong with people seeking opinions on
issues that matter to them most or suit their own political feelings. Just as
someone with intentions to vote for the Conservative Party are more than likely
to read the Daily Telegraph or read a blog such as Conservative Home, a
Manchester United fan is unlikely to be regularly reading Leeds United fan
forums. Opinions are underpinned by ideologies and healthy debate, but they
aren’t immune to scrutiny and facts.
The growth in social media and blogs has changed all that.
Politicians and sportspeople share their news, observations and experiences
online. When Sir Bradley Wiggins retired recently, he did it to his 100,000
Facebook followers. Given some of the accusations being thrown at him and Team
Sky of late, surely you’re better telling fans who have followed your career online
than to the BBC Sports Editor who may be more interested in newsworthy events.
Certainly, there’ll be a handful who are likely to throw a few strong words at
you, but they’re a small minority. They’re ultimately in control.
The real concern is that with more people now getting their
news from social media, to what extent does this withstand the scrutiny of more
traditional forms of media? Naturally people tend to migrate to environments
where people share their own views. The so-called echo-chambers mean that
people often become immune to criticism or the opposing view. Supporters of
Jeremy Corbyn spring to mind, why should they listen to the likes of the
mainstream media if they’re bias and puppets of capitalism. Nor do they appear
to listen to some of the facts or responses from opinion polls and focus
groups.
However, as Gove and Trump suggest. Why should you listen to
these facts that suit your own argument? Ever since the Brexit vote, every time
a new piece of economic data has been released showing increasing business and
consumer confidence and economic growth, the media outlets that championed a
Leave vote have been quick to highlight how wrong the Remain camp were. It may
just be a case that it’s not that people are fed up of listening to experts, it’s
that the experts haven’t always been right in the first place so I’ll take
their view with a pinch of salt.
Fake news is part of this broader narrative. People have a
distrust of traditional forms of media and they’re no longer willing to sit and
watch evening news bulletins or simply turn the obvious places for their news.
They’re looking at Facebook and sharing links from organisations where the
rigours and scrutiny of a newsroom are certainly not as strong. They’ll share
videos of political speeches that neglect to provide the other side of the
argument or simply push the most alarming of facts that are likely to lead more
people to share this. For those creating the content, why wouldn’t you? In a
matter of days, you have the potential of getting millions of people through to
your website. Think of all the advertising revenue you could make.
Additionally, if I’m Donald Trump and I tweet something, it’s going to be seen
by millions of people online. It’s also going to be reported by traditional
news outlets, another opportunity to ignore some the facts.
There is no simple way to change this overnight. Part of the
problem in America may be that public sector broadcasting is not as strong as
say the BBC. A real look needs to be taken by the looks of Facebook over
editorial being shared. The solution will be among the traditional news
organisations working with social media. This isn’t and shouldn’t be a way of
inhibiting free speech, but it should be a way of highlighting overtly when
facts are disputed.
