
December 9
2016, 1:30 p.m.
THE PHRASE
“FAKE NEWS” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is
similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate
speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially
useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most
important fact to realize about this new term: those who most loudly denounce
Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
One of the
most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new
anonymous group and its disgusting blacklist of
supposedly pro-Russia news outlets – a shameful article mindlessly spread by
countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite the Post
article itself being centrally based on Fake News. (The Post this week finally added a lame editor’s note acknowledging
these critiques; the Post editors absurdly claimed that they did not mean
to “vouch for the validity” of the blacklist even though the article’s key
claims were based on doing exactly that).
Now we have an
even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing
emails from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their
media spokespeople adopted a strategy of outright lying to the
public, claiming – with
no basis whatsoever – that the emails were doctored or fabricated and
thus should be ignored. That lie –
and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless
disregard for its truth – was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC
personalities such as Joy Ann Reid and Malcolm Nance, The Atlantic’s David Frum, and Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.