HOW do you define fake news in accredited media? Is it a fabricated article designed to pass off as a legitimate piece of news, or a news report over a yet-to-be unsubstantiated claim which nevertheless, gained enough traction to be published for the purpose of discussion?
Or, is it fake simply because someone chooses not to believe it? For example, vaccination has been effective in preventing more diseases from recurring — is that considered a piece of fake news by anti-vaxxers?
Here is another round of examples.
“Infamous dictator Adolf Hitler has been discovered alive and on his way to ascend as the next Pope.” Is that fake news? Why?
“Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is expected to inherit the fledgeling Pakatan Harapan government as the next prime minister as early as December, sources within the corridors of powers claimed.” Is this fake too? How so?
Now, in the first place, how do you define news? What is “news”? Some say it is news if it is factual, relative and hits close to home. Others summarise it simply as a piece of new information. If detractors are to say that the newspapers, or this newspaper, are filled with rubbish news, then how do you weigh its quality? Do you consider the news as fake if it appears to be biased? Or do you sift through your own discerning views, or simply join a slice of lemmings thoughtlessly herding off over a cliff?
One of the usual pet peeves of journalists, or perhaps the greatest insult one faces, is when his article, despite ticking the ethical and legal boxes of all cardinal rules of the practice, is deemed fake by those who disagree with it.
The employment of the word “fake” in this particular context is certainly as perplexing as it is condescending. For instance, United States President Donald Trump’s unbridled use of the term fake news to deny any negative report against his government and personality has undoubtedly irked newsmen who are at the forefront holding the billionaire accountable for his style of leadership.
Unfortunately, such traits are surprisingly prevalent at home, particularly among politicians and a segment of Netizens.
“This pertains to the level of trust (on the published piece). However, there is a lack of interest to verify the news. It is pertinent to evaluate the veracity of a report, instead of looking at it through the opacity of sentiments. It is always better to be rational, rather than emotional. For instance, there was a case when a political leader was accused of possessing a fake degree. Several quarters claimed that it was fake.
“But journalists did some digging and people found out that the news was not fake at all. Politicians, especially, should avoid knee-jerk reactions. You cannot afford to do that nowadays,” says analyst Prof Dr Sivamurugan Pandian.
As a side note, opting to cry “fake news” right from the get-go to denounce critics is a reflection of Trump-like mentality. Have we become too arrogant to accept criticisms, differing views or reports concerning realities on the ground that may not sit well with our ideals?
In Malaysia, journalists equipped with accreditation from the Information Department are bound by ethics and duty to serve as members of the fourth estate; a public avenue to ensure checks-and-balances are religiously observed.
Admittedly, there are also those who fail to provide balance in their reports or thorough fact-checking. But the articles produced remain arguably fake if we are open enough to take into account the exact circumstances.
Ostensibly, the people of New Malaysia are educated, expressive and critical. However, there is also space for us to grow more mature intellectually, instead of letting ourselves be ensconced in brusque retaliation.
The squeaky wheel that needs to be greased concerns civility and eloquence, and as journalists, it is our role to arm the people with the catechism required to hold those in power culpable or provide the masses with new knowledge.
And yes, with the freedom of expression in tow, it is up to you to decide if this piece is fake too.
The writer is an NST specialist writer