OPINION:
Half the world is getting information, sometimes labeled “news,” from the internet. At the fingertips of 3.6 billion people there’s a repository of knowledge so vast that it might as well be infinite. Self-appointed gatekeepers are cutting the flow down to a manageable size, but how they trim determines its shape. It’s sometimes delivered in odd shapes. As the presidential election demonstrated, sculpting the news is largely done with goals other than fair and balanced. Americans must be aware that when news comes pre-packaged, “facts” are often merely “factoids,” novelist Norman Mailer’s famous description of something that looks like it might be a fact, but in fact is not a fact.
Social media rules the waves of digital chatter that lap the globe, and Facebook rides the curl. A Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults finds that 79 percent of Americans use the Facebook networking site — far more than Instagram at 32 percent, Pinterest at 31 percent, LinkedIn at 29 percent and Twitter at 24 percent.
Information is a “product” and quality counts. Social media sites are vulnerable to users posting false “news” to influence opinions or sell goods. One important sensation in the closing days of the campaign, as phony as a Hindu fakir’s tricks, was a false claim that President Obama was considering granting Hillary Clinton a blanket pardon for any and all crimes and misdemeanors.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg owns up to the dilemma of fake news: “Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. I am confident we can find ways for our community to tell us what content is most meaningful, but I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.” His caution is well advised — truth is the province of a higher pay grade than his, ours or anyone else’s. Man can know only facts.
Earlier in the campaign, a group of Facebook news editors claimed their bosses manipulated the “trending” news feed to accord with personal whim. Favorite stories were added — even when there was no perceived audience interest — and conservative topics were treated as taboo. Facebook assured its users that its guidelines prohibit the suppression of political perspectives. Still, the all-too-human tendency to believe rules are meant to be broken is always trending.
Facebook isn’t the only information giant thought to put a thumb on the scale. In June, some observers claimed that Google was blocking searches for topics unflattering to Hillary Clinton, and a WikiLeaks email suggested that Google CEO Eric Schmidt was angling for a role as an adviser to the Clinton campaign. When online providers withhold content, readers can’t know what they don’t know, and when the news is served with a slice of baloney, everybody gets indigestion.
Few argue that social media doesn’t provide a valuable benefit. Donald Trump marveled following his presidential victory over the Election Day impact of his 28 million followers, spread among Facebook, Twitter and Instagram: “It’s a great form of communication.” But it’s not a reliable source of news. For that, readers must return to old-fashioned journalism. Real editors and reporters are still out there and they’re trained to separate fact from fiction. There’s nothing wrong with tapping social media to learn what’s buzzing across the backyard fence. But when facts count, it’s the newspapers and their companion websites with a reputation for accuracy that provide the clear picture of what’s really what.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.