Comments 49

自由言论和假新闻

Jan 6, 2017 Peter Singer

普林斯顿——去年11月美国总统大选一周前，有人在推特上发帖称，希拉里·克林顿是一个恋童癖团伙的核心成员。有人通过社交媒体不断散播谣言，还有一位右翼脱口秀节目主持人亚历克斯·琼斯反复指控她参与虐待儿童，还指控她的竞选主席约翰·波德斯塔参与撒旦的邪恶仪式。在一段YouTube视频中（后来被删除），琼斯提到“希拉里·克林顿亲手谋杀、切碎和强奸的所有儿童。”这段视频在大选前四天被上传至网络，并被观看超过400,000次。

维基解密发布的电子邮件显示波德斯塔有时会去华盛顿特区一家名叫彗星乒乓的比萨饼餐厅就餐。显然因为这个原因，儿童性团伙的指控就聚焦这座比萨饼餐厅，并采用了#比萨门的主题标签。旨在散播某类信息的机器人程序大肆转发上述指控——给人留下的印象是很多民众都在严肃探讨“比萨门”。令人吃惊的是，迈克尔·弗林将军也转发了这则推特，而这位将军很快就将成为当选总统唐纳德·特朗普的国家安全顾问。

即使在特朗普胜选后——虽然谎言被《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》所拆穿——这则故事仍然继续传播。彗星乒乓餐厅经常接到辱骂、往往还带有威胁意味的骚扰电话。当餐厅经理向华盛顿警方求助时，他被告知谣言是受到宪法保护的言论。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

Oct 19, 2018 Minxin Pei
The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Oct 17, 2018 Carl Bildt
Will Italy Sink Europe?

Oct 17, 2018 Jim O'Neill
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab
The Brexit Endgame

Oct 16, 2018 Robert Skidelsky

Peter Singer

Writing for PS since 2001
163 Commentaries

Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, Laureate Professor in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne, and founder of the non-profit organization The Life You Can Save. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), Rethinking Life and Death, The Point of View of the Universe, co-authored with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, The Most Good You Can Do, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, One World Now, Ethics in the Real World, and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction, also with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek. In 2013, he was named the world's third "most influential contemporary thinker" by the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 56 in all 56 Comments on this article

Michael Parsons May 5, 2017

'Fake news' is neither new nor without effect, often unforeseen.
The fake 'Zinoviev Letter' scandal for example poisoned the UK 1924 election, and was used to clam Russian plans to disrupt the country via the Labour Party. It is worth thinking about the results of that: Labour los6t but not more badly than predicted. The effects were bad though because (a) it gave the Labour Party an excuse for defeat that delayed any internal Party reformsso it was almost obliterated in the 1930's in spi5te of the Great Depression: the Democrats might think about that. (b) it poisoned relations with Russia for a long time and so greatly harmed international relations and peace prospects. All America might well think about that too, befor endless war deals US a blow comparable to the British Empire's struggle to a stalemate against the Boers in South Africa, or its earlier three defeats by the tribes in Afghanistan. Thye battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift.
Then of course there is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, outlining supposed Jewish schemes for World Domination - there is no need to dwell onthe consequences of that.
My point is libel can be criminal and should be exposed as such - and aeven more, free speech triumphs only if the battle-field is level - which means not dominated by Big Money and Ideologues who stifle contradiction or imprison people for laughing if a Senator seems ludicrous..The greatest defence can often be a sense of humour?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Hullevad May 3, 2017

As a politician one must live with disrespect, insult low regard etc.
If libel is criminalised there can no more be any kind of irony expressed. The trouble today is that it is hard to distinct weather it is irony or fake news?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Kolker May 3, 2017

The politicians deserve every bit of disdain, disrespect, dislike, contempt, contumely, insult and low-regard we can heap upon them. Any one who would -choose- to control and command other adults is a dangerous creature. Our government leaders should be chosen by lot like they did in Ancient Athens, and then for only very short terms.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Kolker May 3, 2017

If Libel is criminalized we can kiss our freedom of speech and freedom of publication good-bye and farewell. If the politicians can't take rough play, they should either grow thicker skin or get out of the public spotlight.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Aveyard Feb 6, 2017

I'm not entirely convinced that fake news is a new thing. Before the 1924 election in the UK, the right-wing Daily Mail published the Zinoviev letter. It might've won the Conservatives the election by making so many scared of Communism, but it was later revealed to be a fake.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andy Kadir-Buxton Jan 24, 2017

The problem with libel in the UK is that it protects the rich, if you are poor you have no money to lose by being lied about.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
B Wilds Jan 21, 2017

The recent revelations that some or even much of the news we see may be "fake" should not shock us. Confirming that someone else has been less than forthright does not elevate institutions such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, or PBS to a higher level. The article below calls for us to question all we are told or see.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/12/fake-news-revelations-should-not-shock.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Kolker Jan 20, 2017

"Fake News" has been around since God invented dirt. It is as old as the human race.....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jan 12, 2017

A "Fake News" world? Really? Such as a world where BuzzFeed and cann can run a libelous story about Donald Trump that even they admit is unverified and demonstrably false in some respects? Or a world where the serious review of what is known and not known about Pizzagate is censored?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jan 11, 2017

Here is the best way to stop "fake news". Simply delete all comments that show that the establishment is the dominant source of "fake news".
- M M Jan 11, 2017
  
  Peter, do not give PS more ideas...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 9, 2017

Peter Singer highlights the gulf between fake news and free speech, as well as the conflict between freedom of expression and the right to reputation. Last year fake news had been disseminated through social media platforms to spread defamatory lies, hate speech, propaganda and conspiracy theories in the US in an effort to erode trust in the government and undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy. As elections are held this year in several European countries, measures need to be taken to protect our electoral integrity.
One story, dubbed "Pizzagate" was particularly disturbing and made headlines becuase it led to a shooting incident. A man had been arrested after firing a rifle inside a pizza restaurant in Washington DC, that was the target of a bizarre story. Conspiracy theorists said the pizzeria was the base of a child sex ring run by Hillary Clinton and her aide, John Podesta. The gunman, a listener of Alex Jones, a right-wing talk show host, told police he went to the restaurant to "self-investigate" the theory, following the fake story spread by Jones. Walking into the restaurant he pointed the rifle at an employee, who managed to flee. He later fired the weapon, opened a locked door, but found no children. Then he surrendered to police.
The First Amentment to the US Constitution is a staunch defender of free speech, but has countless times been abused for slander. There are defamation laws that protect people from false, damaging statements, allowing them a recourse to repair their damaged reputations, careers, finances etc. But such laws often intersect with those that protect freedom of expression. Nevertheless what Jones said about Clilnton was highly damaging, because he accused her of being involved "in child abuse and that her campaign chairman, Podesta, took part in satanic rituals."
Her legal remedy could be to file a civil suit against Jones, which is "costly and time-consuming." Such a lawsuit is "effective only against those who have the assets to pay whatever damages are awarded." If she chooses not to have him prosecuted, it will only embolden him and other defamers to carry on and get away with impunity. Many European countries - like Germany - have strict libel and slander laws to protect citizens by making it a crime to defame others. This allows extremely serious libel be prosecuted in criminal courts.
But "criminal libel is not a federal offense" in the US. "It continues to be a crime in some states, but few cases are brought." In 2015 the Wagner and Fargo report concludes that criminal libel has become obsolete. The author says "recent examples of fake news suggest that Wagner and Fargo’s conclusion was premature." Indeed, defamatory lies destroyed Hillary Clinton's chances to win the election, by accusing her of "personally murdering children." As there is no civil libel law to provide for "adequate remedy," the author wants to see the return of "criminal libel."
Ahead of the September election in Germany, authorities have expressed concern about Russia's operation to influence the outcome of the election, in which Angela Merkel, a staunch opponent to Putin, will run for a fourth term. The intelligence community reports a rise in Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilising German society. Officials accuse Facebook of making loads of money with fake news and urge the company to face its "social responsibility," by deleting "prosecutable defamation" immediately, once reported. The US government believes that fake news stories sent via Facebook, Google and Twitter helped Donald Trump win the November election, apart from Russian meddling. The German government plans to introduce a law in early 2017 that would require social media firms to set up local offices to respond faster to complaints. Facebook said it would take measures to prevent the spread of fake news. Let's hope we'll do a better job than the Americans - to bar populists from gaining executive power.
- Maurice Simpson Jan 15, 2017
  
  Very good comments. Spot on. Thanks for posting and sharing them in this forum.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jan 9, 2017

It is an age old debate. Should the state protect the citizens from their own stupidity? If the answer is a resounding YES we introduce a Soviet or Chinese style regime. If it is no we put up with all sorts of malicious behavior that preys on stupidity. My personal viewpoint on this sways from day to day depending on whether it was stupidity or authority which ruined my day.
- dante crisante Jan 10, 2017
  
  There is a tendency to think (e.g. Michael Public comment) that the debate is simply black and white. Either you have total freedom to say whatever you like or be silenced by the state.
  I believe it’s imperative to provide sufficient liberty to express your opinion but also you must be held responsible for your actions.
  Australia has struck such a balance in laws famously known as 18C and 18D. One (18C) states what you cannot say and 18D states the conditions under which you can say those things prohibited in 18C.
  It may not surprise most to learn that the Extreme Right would like to repel 18C, i.e. have no limitations whatsoever, or if you like, let citizens be as stupid and irresponsible as they wish to be. this would not be a sign of 'civilization' but the exact contrary.
  https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/projects/glance-racial-vilification-under-sections-18c-and-18d-racial
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Jan 10, 2017
  
  Ha!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
D. V. Gendre Jan 9, 2017

What about the "fake news" that Hillary wins the election? For month this fake news has spread all over the media. Isn't this also "fake news" spread by serious news site?

Fortunately we live in a free society were you can believe whatever you want - even if your neighbor doesn't like it and even if there may be such radical isolated cases as the ones described in this article.

The bigger threat to democracy is spreading such articles about radical isolated cases - which may be cases for the jurisdiction - and implicating that this is the "norm". Because soon some politicans will take actions and try to pass acts and laws which gives them the power to tell us, the people, what channel, newspaper, internet site etc. can be read, heared or watched and which ones have to be banned. This is the real threat.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Oleksandr Aleksandrovych Jan 9, 2017

One of the means to identify fake news is not to look for the news per se but to look for the people of credibility. If you hear many different and mutually incompatible views on a certain subject, the best way to find the truth is to read or view those sources (journalists or media) which have a long-standing proven record of conscientious journalism. When such sources make a mistake they say "We are sorry, we were wrong", or they say "We do not know" etc. In other words, in the big ocean of lies and fake news, such sources could perform the role of anchors of credibility, honesty and common sense.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
joey jay Jan 9, 2017

Interesting, mamy POTUS are womanizers, use expletive words. get drunk, and some are plain warmongers. I see no difference between Trump and Lindon Johnson, or Kennedy or Bushes or Clinton...
They all lied, committed fraud and manipulated the masses, as well as intervened in other democratic elected presidencies.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/6hvynpc1hm1z8n4/Room_40_British_Naval_Intelligence_1914_18.pdf

It is not as if Trump will destroy our standard of living, because has been destroyed by the globalists, or our education system, or our health care or our environment or will create wars

http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see

http://www.yourstrawman.com/Marrs.pdf
And most important is the challenge of the MSM consensus:
http://johnpilger.com/videos/media-and-war-challenging-the-consensus

Npw. John Pilgeris netter positioned to write about fake news than Peter Singer. Noam Chomsly has written about Manufacture Consent many years ago.
So Peter Singer is a joe coming to late...MSM is as responsible for the fake news, like any other media.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
joey jay Jan 9, 2017

Carls Berstein, a Clinton supporter, wrote:

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patrice Ayme Jan 9, 2017

Curtis Carpentier asked me to prove that the New York Times censored all my comments for years (so that the NYT can go on with his "Fake News", unchallenged). Mr. Carpentier said he knew two people there, who never heard of me. (It seems to me that going to the New York Times to ask them if they mistreat their subscribers, is a bit like asking wolves if they have seen any sheep recently...)

However, a one minute google search "Patrice Ayme New York Times" brings hits which are not essays of mine, but actually eight years old comments of mine inside the New York Times, remarkable for their depth and wealth of analysis. No comments show up in the last few years. Thus it would seem that my disappearance from New York Times comments is not due to me (I write a lot, and I want my opinions to be known, as I find them more judicious than those of “Fake News” factories, such as the “Times”). Instead, my disappearance from the New York Times comments for a great number of years can only be explained by a systematic, vicious secret blacklist at the New York Times to ban those who threaten the established mental order.

I think this sort of unjustifiable censorship from Mainstream Media should be outright unlawful (as the MSM gets privileges from the government, that is, us). I have never sent a comment to the New York Times which was not very serious, polite, extremely well informed, and informative. I sent thousands of comments to the New York Times. For me, they have become an experience in the viciousness of censorship. The same holds from pseudo-progressive outfits such as the Daily Kos, which banned me in 2009. I cannot be accused of not being progressive (and I am a personal friend of Barack Obama, although I never informed the NYT of that).
- M M Jan 9, 2017
  
  Patrice, do not take matters personally, the mass media live in a different era, the NYT managed to survive due to certain considerations without them, they would have gone bust long time ago.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Konstanzhoglo Konstanzhoglo Jan 9, 2017

Western political establishment by their media created their readers/listeners and successfully manipulated them. They also created some themes which are undisputable and being taken by the most of western inhabitants without any critical perception.
For a long time this situation have been benefited to it, but in case of Trump it failed.
Guys, you are responsible for them were tamed by you.:)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
thomas greaves Jan 8, 2017

There is a story once told to every child in Western schools, about a man who walked on water, made a blind man see etc. The world is used to myths being paraded as facts. The Sun newspaper once ran a story in its front page about a comedian who ate a canary alive. No one complains about these distortions of reality; so, what is different about myths told about politicians and their antics? In fact, the world view propagated by any culture filters its vision of reality through the lens of its beliefs and values, most of which are contingent upon historical circumstances and conventions. This fake news story is a fake news story.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Kolker Jan 8, 2017

Reinstating criminal libel? How about re-enacting the Libel and Sedition Acts. This is the first step toward destroying our rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Should a person be criminally prosecuted just because someone else takes what he says seriously and acts on it? If that were public policy you can kiss science fiction and other fictional stories goodbye.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Kolker Jan 8, 2017

The only restrictions on speech should be to punish or deter fomenting a riot, organizing a lynch mob, organizing or partaking in a violent insurrection and revealing certain vital military secrets. Anything else can be dealt with the libel and slander laws (to punish false defamation) and people using their good sense in judging what to believe or not believe.
- Ormond Otvos Jan 10, 2017
  
  The presumption being that most voters have good sense.
  
  Facts not on the record.
  
  Much research points to this not being true. Kahneman, Ramachandran, et al.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Platypus Jan 8, 2017

Pizzagate may be fake news (although if you take the time to look into it, there are circumstantial pieces of evidence and coincidences that at the very least raises questions) but Rotherham wasn't. When the gatekeepers have abdicated their responsibility to present the facts, especially when they are inconvenient to their preferred narrative, they have in the process forfeited their credibility and trustworthiness. Imposing punitive consequences on dissident expression, however "fake" it may be is a dangerous move. You don't win people over by force. Tactics like these will only crystallize the resentment and alienation that masses feel toward the gatekeepers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrés Galia Jan 8, 2017

The author asks if it is time for the legal pendulum to swing back toward the offense of criminal libel. No, it is time to educate people so they can ask for evidence for whatever it is mentioned in the media. If people are so willing to accept whatever they are told, the problem is those people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robin Bell Jan 8, 2017

Before the internet, the great Winston observed that a lie can spread halfway around the world before truth gets its pants on. Nowadays, it gets around the world 10 times, or more, before truth wakes up. How to act is not as clear as the need to do something.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bob Aceti Jan 8, 2017

The 1927 Whitney v. California case cited raises the contextual issue of technology and freedom of speech. It is well resolved that freedom of speech does not condone someone yelling "fire" in a room that includes other people. (Unless there is a fire.) In similar reasoning can we question the speed and broad desimination of false and inciting comments that are transmitted by Internet and Mass Media?

I think the answer should be "yes". The information and broadcasting technologies that exist today did not exist or could have been contemplated in the SCOTUS in 1927 decision.

The present use of fake and 'first-to-market' misleading and false news and opinions laced with strident racist, anti-Islam and planned political targeting of candidates for public office ought to NOT be covered by the freedom of speech gambit provided in the US Constitution (First Amendment) as political speech. Instead, speech or broadcasting by mass media using federal radio-frequency and cable broadcasting and Internet technologies should be considered "commercial" in substance and subject to more restrictive rules that apply to commercial speech, than to politicians that (regrettably) can continue to lie and mislead under the American system of electoral selection.

The presumption of the SCOTUS is that Americans have good education and have sufficient reasoning ability to make good-decisions. I suggest this presumption is also false.

Moreover, the SCOTUS will not hear a case that is "political" in nature - deferring to the executive and legislative branches for resolution. However, we all know that the SCOTUS is "politically biased" - officially as a result of Roosevelt's 1937 "Court-packing" law. Ever since, each POTUS looks to realign the SCOTUS bench with appointments to reflect the political bias acceptable to the current oval office holder.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bob Aceti Jan 8, 2017

A related cousin to "Fake News" is first to market news stories that are fast and loose pieces that attach any blame to convenient targets. Post 9-11 World Trade Center attack, Janet Napolitano, the U.S. homeland security secretary at the time, claimed the 9-11 terrorists infiltrated the U.S. through Canada. Although this was proven false Senator John McCain (R., AZ) repeated the claim several years later.

The irony was that not only was the news flash by the U.S. leader of Homeland Security false and, later, Sen. McCain's repetition of false statements on record, the truth was that the terrorists were enrolled in large passenger jet flying lessons in the U.S. One airplane trainer claimed that during the course of flight training of one 9-11 terrorist the student explained he was not interested in landing the aircraft, only takeoff and flying. And the flight school trainer did not report or otherwise consider the advice provided as suspicious.

On Friday Jan. 6th a man went to retrieve his luggage after arrival and pulled-out a gun and loaded bullets and killed 5 people. The first flash news report was that the shooter landed from Canada. Later the news was changed to report the truth: the man flew in from Alaska; a former Puerto Rican National Guardsman who served in Iraq and suffered PTSD.

Americans have a tendency to spread false news as a result of broadcasters and news reporters focus on ratings that are driven by audience views: first to market is more important than the truth when it comes to news and opinion reportage. The Alt-Right Mass Media could not have attained market shares without generating a stream of false and deliberately morally depraved attacks on people of color, Islam, "liberals" and anyone in politics that did not accept the extremist right worldview.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jack A. Goldstone Jan 8, 2017

This is a matter of law catching up with technology. When a person seeks to spread a malicious rumor, it used to reply on word of mouth (where lack of a respectable source hurt credibility anyway). Today, anyone can dress up a website to look like a news institutions and post malicious rumors that can reach hundreds of thousands or millions of viewers. There is no legal method to deal with this new phenomenon of using fake news on social media to inflict deliberate and significant harm on individuals or institutions. Criminal libel laws would fill this gap and are much needed to provide a remedy to this new evil.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bob Aceti Jan 8, 2017

Most people in the west over-estimate the collective intelligence of Americans. Canadian 'snowbirds' that winter in Florida often return with stories about locals that exhibit poor judgment in serving customers at name-brand stores. No one complains about real prices as most items are more costly back home in Canada than in Florida - including shelter/housing. When Mr. Trump shout-out his affection for the "low-educated" American voters most citizens in the west may have thought he was appealing to a small proportion of American voters - as we all think that Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc. rule and most Americans are 'reasonably' well-educated - at least sufficiently so to dominate world affairs and global economic trade. But obviously the truth is that there are too many under-educated voters in the U.S. that can and have shown to be a risk to global stability. In the case of the Trump election it is clear that his supporters chose a path of bigotry, racism and an "America First" trade policy. And this after much of today's global political-economy was crafted by generations of American political and business leadership.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Maurice Simpson Jan 8, 2017

Thanks for this valuable historical perspective. There is no doubt that the American elections have been asymmetrically polluted with disinformation intentionally propagated to affect the outcome. The amazing part is the inaction and passivity of the the Administration under whose nose these abuses were taking place. Inexplicable ....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Oleksandr Aleksandrovych Jan 8, 2017

I fully agree with the author about the need to bring back criminalization of libel. As Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius aptly put it: "A lie is not an alternative point of view". Any person with malicious intent can call himself a journalist and spread around deliberate disinformation and fake news without any punishment whatsoever. This is exactly what the Russian regime is doing capitalizing on the West's obsession with the sacred cow of the free speech. Most of the Russian journalists are simply FSB people doing their job conscientiously to bring about the decline of the West.
Of course, while criminalizing libel, we ought to be very careful not to stifle legitimate and honest media, setting clear rules. Yet, once a person or media outlet are caught red-handed, they must be sued. I am sure that even a few precedents of jailing fake journalists or closing down fake channels or websites would significantly curb the scourge of fake news.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vidvuds Beldavs Jan 8, 2017

I was shocked to learn that people that I know and that I respected believed the stories that Hillary Clinton had caused the murder of a large string of people that had opposed her Such posts were very frequent on FB. When people who had established reputations such as Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Michael Flynn could lead chants to hang "Killery" things have gone beyond the pale and criminal libel laws would be appropriate to return an element of civility to public speech carried by media outlets including FB.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian C Jan 8, 2017

I admire and I have read all published works of professor Singer. I am also the owner of a large internet and media company which has offered services to hundreds of millions world wide.

With this in mind, I think the professor is mistaking on this particular problem. Fake news is a real problem, but this problem mainly affects society because of mainstream media, not extremist publications.

Be it the New York Times or CNN, there is so much lying by omission and avoidance of real problems or topics. This is a historical problem - how did these icons of democracy present - the Irak war, the Vietnam war ...

Also, the rule of presenting both opposing views as equals - even on problems like climate change - where few consider climate change as subject to debate - is a significant issue to "truth and knowledge finding".

The final problem of mainstream media is that they are owned and controlled in a concentrated fashion. This means there is no real plurality of views, but we control the "truth".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emanuel Müller Jan 8, 2017

The fake news hysteria has the bright side of making it seem useful to introduce basic notions of non-gullibility in the school curriculum. While the mass media were in the hands of the rich and powerful, maximal gullibility among the masses was probably very desirable.
It allowed to mobilize the "people" for freedom and justice for and against communism, for and against nazism, for and against Saddam Hussein, for or against classism, for or against racism etc., however with the advent of social media and cheap information spreading capabilities the whole point of mass gullibility is lost and new ways of controlling the masses could be developed and implemented.
One method would obviously be truth and moderation internet squads à la chinese, that would be able to block any information that is threatening the interests of e.g. world peace or social harmony.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patrice Ayme Jan 8, 2017

Kindly answering Curtis Carpenter: I have been a full subscriber to the New York Times for more than 30 years. When the Internet appeared, the NYT consistently published fake news from the White House about the Iraq War (2003; the Judith Miller affair). They blocked my comments then (my comments were against the war). I accused, then, several writers of the NYT to be liars (including Miller, Thomas Friedman, etc.)

Later the NYT became more lenient, and published 100% of my comments. I am a personal friend of Obama, I helped him campaign in 2007/2008. However the NYT then selectively started to censor my comments about Obamacare (I thought it was crazy), or drones (I was against some usage of them), Qualitative Easing (should have been done differently), and on and on.

In the last two years or so, the New York Times has blocked ALL my comments, literally hundreds of them, perhaps more than a thousand. If I say there is a bad storm in California, on an article about California weather, they block that. I contacted NYT editors, they told me it was the decision of every single editorialist to block me.

I don't believe it. I have a website, with millions of words on it, and it's a very honorable website. Actually my friend BO reads it. As far as I am concerned, the behavior of the NYT should be unlawful in the "newspaper of report" of the USA.

I am still a subscriber, by the way.
Patrice Ayme
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 9, 2017
  
  Can you give me a name of someone at the NYT that I can contact that will verify your story? The two people I know there have never heard of you
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jan 7, 2017

What if "fake news" is itself the fake news? People have tried to sabotage our first amendment rights on lesser grounds haven't they?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kenneth Wallenstein Jan 7, 2017

Yelling "Murder!" in a crowded forum is not ethically different from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. People have a right not to be harassed by false accusations. Lawsuits should be directed at individuals - not organizations.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jan 7, 2017

As for "Fake News", it is a different subject from the problem of defamation of politicians via false claims.

If we wanted to be straightforward about the problem, the term to use would be rumor-mongering, unsubstantiated allegations, innuendo, cherry-picking, misleading spin. These techniques are embraced by both the brand-name MSM as well as off-brand infotainment sources.

"Fake News" is a catchy term, which makes me think of "Fake Gucci Bag" - i.e., something that is an imitation of a brand name product. The fakeness diminishes prestige and exclusivity without saying much about function either way -- even if a Fake Gucci bag was high quality, that would be just as damaging. When lawyers go to court, they point out that the cheap availability of a "Fake Gucci bag" does damage to the real Gucci brand's value by watering it down.

And this is exactly what is happening with the MSM - their product is no longer unique, and is often shown to be not especially valuable (i.e., accurate). Too bad for them.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jan 7, 2017

Being able to sue for defamation won't help anyone's political campaign, since you'll just see third parties delivering the message - as with the "Swift Boat" story from the 2004 presidential campaign. Third party. Bush not responsible. The end.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jan 7, 2017

To Free Speech and Fake News I suggest you add Fake speech - being the careful skewed presentation made by so many politicians - with lying now being referred to as Mis-speaking. In a world where a paediatrician (every hospital should have one) can be abused at their home by members of the public who think this means they are a paedophile (every hospital should not have one) anything is possible because to some people words are entirely plastic in their meaning
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Faruk Timuroglu Jan 6, 2017

It was a ferocious election campaign ever and neither side was less cruel than the other was. It's time to get over and let the President-elect focus on his work. Alas no, Obama is trying to foment a putsch against him!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lawrence Tomko Jan 6, 2017

Government constraint of free speech is dangerous for a democracy. I would suggest that speech should continue to be protected, but the identity of the speaker should be made know to the audience. I realize the difficulty in doing so in the internet era.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jan 6, 2017

The author of this article assumes that all people are stupid and that they beleive the gossip in the media. Can this assumption be perceived as misinformation or propaganda of some sort?
- M M Jan 7, 2017
  
  Steve, where are you Shakespeare now that you are so badly needed..
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jan 7, 2017
  
  "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
  Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
  "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
  "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
  "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
  "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- M M Jan 7, 2017
  
  Carsten, I cannot disagree with your rational, although prejudices can come into play in it as well. Therefore the matter is not as clear cut as the author of this article is making it sound to be.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Carsten von Wersebe Jan 6, 2017
  
  I don't think it's that bad of an assumption to think that many people believe in rumors. He even gave an example of the lone gunman who went out to find the "hidden" children. Sure it may be a one off case but if someone went through such extremes because of the rumors then surely its reasonable to assume that they affect others as well.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rick Puglisi Jan 6, 2017

We shouldn't make criminals out of people for fake news. It leads to book burning. I enjoy The Onion and sarcastic, funny, fake news. I am smart enough to know it is fake like almost everyone else. It is even funny when North Korea or some dictator publishes an article from the Onion thinking it is real. It exposes their ignorance and bigotry. Have respect for your fellow citizens instead of being an arrogant elitist.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Jan 6, 2017

A very good article, but nothing new! Misinformation, distortion or utter falsification of history about others and oneself are as old as humanity. That Jews were practicing blood of children in their rituals was a lie was used by politicians and clerics all through history.
Czars and Nazis were good at it. Sometimes even civillized nations used stories of brutality and rape to infuriate citizens very cleverly, both in times of war and peace. So libel laws should be used rigorously as a deterrent but it won't completely eradicate fake news and lies!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jan 6, 2017

Great article. Criminal libel laws should be revived at all levels of government, and tested in the Supreme Court. News aggregators should also probably be treated as publishers in libel actions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.