Facebook bore the brunt of a wave of criticism in the aftermath of the 2016 election when Buzzfeed reported that fake news outperformed real news in the months leading up to November 9th(Silverman Buzzfeed). Other media sources quickly latched onto the news as a method for pushing the blame off of traditional media and onto social media for Trump’s nomination. The analysis looked at “20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyper partisan blogs generated” more reactions than the 20 best performing election stories from 19 major news websites. An important note is that these fake news stories were propagated on hyper partisan webpages or blogs, and, as is usual with far right or far left blogs, a good deal of false truth is spread around and accepted. A Dartmouth professor said he was “troubled that Facebook is doing so little to combat fake news” but doesn’t go so far as to admit that the fake news stories swung the election. In truth, it’s unlikely that the fake news stories swung the election or frankly stole any votes, as the users that frequently visit hyper partisan websites already have their mind up before they click on a news article about their prospective candidate.
The most ridiculous story that was shared about one million times, was “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President, Releases Statement” (Buzzfeed). This is the only fake news story that I personally witnessed shared on my social media networks, but, at least in my feed, it was to mock the article rather than to perpetuate the lie. In other words, there were a great deal of people re-sharing, re-tweeting or reacting to this fake news stories without actually believing that the story held any truth whatsoever. A lot of our political discourse takes place online, and when fake news is displayed alongside good journalism, the public is able to cherry pick the opinions that appeal most to them. Good journalism needs to triumph after 2016. While good journalism traditionally has been objective and emotionless, there is a need now for, at least some, good journalists to write emotionally charged articles that grab readers and social media users attention in 2017.
The spreading of news on Facebook and Twitter has “crowbarred open the window of acceptable political discourse” according to journalist Mark Read, “giving rise to communities and ideological alignments that would have been unable to survive in an arena where information and political organization were tightly controlled by publishers and Establishment political parties. Put another way, it’s not just that Facebook makes politics worse, it’s that it changes politics entirely”(LSE).
Mark Zuckerberg has come to the defense of his creation, and has rejected the notion that the fake news that was propagated on his platform had an influence on the election. Zuckerberg has spoken that “the diversity of information” exists online in a higher amount than any other previous generation, “but we haven’t gotten people to engage with it in higher proportions” (Zuckerberg LSE). There is more information available to the public today than in any time in history, but our public is not engaging with the information at a greater rate. In fact, with platforms like Netflix and the prevalence of memes, the public is engaging less with good journalism and more with mood enhancing junk on their social media feeds. Traditional journalists must work to create content that is both emotionally charged and informative. There is no denying that the age of technology has made journalists’ jobs more difficult. However, to act as though the fake news on a social media feed was the deciding factor for voters is to deny those who did vote for President-elect Trump for valid reasons. It’s to deny the millions of voters their democratic duty.
Mark Zuckerberg:
Personally, I think that the idea that fake news on Facebook, of which it’s a very small amount of the content, influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea. You know voters make decisions based on their lived experience. We really believe in people. You don’t generally go wrong when you trust that people understand what they care about and what’s important to them and you build systems that reflect that. Part of what I think is going on here is people are trying to understand the result of the election, but I do think that there is certain profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is because they saw some fake news. If you believe that then, I don’t think you have internalized the message that Trump supporters are trying to send this election” (LSE)
Be careful what you wish for in the aftermath of the 2016 election. While people are calling out Facebook for the fraction of fake news that is shared on its platform, the alternative is far more alarming. The idea that Facebook will take on a new role of deciding that it would only allow people to share “verified” news is problematic as it gives whoever gets to decide what is valid and true a tremendous amount of clout and discretion. This will only lead to “many people who are already angry about things to argue that their views are being suppressed and hidden and that they are being ‘censored’” Masnick warns (LSE). In the end, I agree most with Mark Zuckerberg, while fake news spread on Facebook might have played a role in the election, people do not vote the way they do because of some fake news they saw on social media. Zuckerberg points out if you believe that, “I don’t think you have internalized the message that Trump supporters are trying to send this election” (Zuckerberg LSE).
What Happened? 