What about Fake News?

Focusing on misinformation and disinformation and what separates them (intent) is a helpful lens for viewing dubious information shared online. But you might be wondering about fake news and other terms. Let’s unpack those. 

Fake News 

There is not a dictionary definition of fake news. Merriam-Webster says that it is a compound noun the meaning Links to an external site. of which is pretty straightforward: “news (‘material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast’) that is fake (‘false, counterfeit’).” Because there is so much variation among news that is fake—from misinformation or disinformation to satire or parody—“fake news” is an ambiguous term. For clarity, stick to more precisely defined terms. 

Bias 

Bias Links to an external site. is “an inclination of temperament or outlook . . . especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment (‘prejudice’).” 

You probably know to look for bias in sources, and maybe you recognize that everyone has an individual outlook that may influence their views on an issue. But professional journalists adhere to a code of ethics Links to an external site. of fair and accurate reporting which calls on them to identify advocacy and commentary as distinct from impartial news reporting. In fact, reputable newspapers separate their factual reporting from their editorial or opinion pieces. If you want to read individual perspectives on an issue, skip right to the opinion section of your favorite newspaper. Or consider the different segments of your favorite cable news channel. You can think of the prime-time line-up of hosts as the opinion section, which is distinct from the newsroom. 

Bias exists, but it is not the same as intentionally misleading. 

Conspiracy Theory 

A conspiracy theory Links to an external site. is “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.” Conspiracy theories often connect otherwise unconnected people and events with just a few narrative threads. To understand how this works, UCLA researchers Links to an external site. compared an actual conspiracy (Bridgegate Links to an external site.) to a debunked conspiracy theory (Pizzagate Links to an external site.). Unlike the actual conspiracy, the conspiracy theory fell apart if a single narrative thread was removed. Researchers also noted that the narrative that explains a conspiracy theory forms quickly. Actual conspiracies, on the other hand, take years to uncover. 

In the case of Pizzagate, the conspiracy theory tied Democratic politicians and a D.C. pizza parlor to a rumored sex-trafficking scandal. The scandal was supposedly exposed when Wikileaks published political emails in November 2016. Conspiracy theorists quickly suggested that the emails contained coded messages that revealed a dark underbelly to Democratic politics. Without the Wikileaks emails, though, all that is left of the theory is Democrats who may or may not eat pizza. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory spread quickly and just one month after the Wikileaks dump a man fired shots into the pizza parlor in order to rescue the alleged victims supposedly being held in the pizzeria's non-existent basement.

Pizzagate demonstrates the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory:

  • It connects otherwise unconnected people and events (Democratic politicians, a pizza parlor, and a child sex trafficking scandal);
  • The theory was held together by one key narrative thread (the coded emails); and
  • The theory came together quickly (in just a matter of weeks).