Does fake news exist?  Obviously.  Is it something that we should be wary of?  Of course.  Is it the media’s fault fake news is promulgated?  Not quite.  Is the mainstream media innocent of the phenomenon?  Definitely not.

These questions, among many, many more, were tackled during the ever popular ACC Presents: Hot Topics Discussion, held on Thursday, March 9th, 2016, which focused on the controversial topic of fake news.  The event was hosted by Student Services.

Previous Hot Topic Discussions have centered on topics and themes such as the 2016 elections, gay marriage, Ferguson, and other relevant subjects.

The discussion included a panel of experts within certain perspectives, which in this case were the perspectives of journalism, democracy, and the discerning reader.  These sides were represented by panelists Vincent Carroll, Ted Belteau and Ann Priestman, respectively.

Vincent Carroll, the first panelist, discussed fake news from a journalist’s point of view.  Carroll has provided commentary for the last 35 years on public policy and politics here in Colorado.  Editorial page editor at the Rocky Mountain News until 2009 when the paper fell, he moved onto The Denver Post until 2016, when he retired from full-time journalism while he was editorial page editor for The Post.  Despite his retiree status, Carroll continues to write columns for The Post.  He is the recipient of writing awards for his editorials and columns, including becoming an inductee into the Denver Press Club Hall of Fame in 2014.

The next panelist, Ted Belteau, came to discuss the impact on democracy of fake news.  He is currently an Educational Consultant and a member of the ACLU Speakers’ Bureau, as well as having been an educator for over 30 years.  Belteau’s philosophy in general is quite simple: “Love all; serve all.”

The last panelist was Ann Priestman, ACC’s own Head Reference and Archives librarian, who represented the discerning reader in an age of rampant misinformation.  Her aim was to arm attendees with the knowledge necessary to pick their way through the masses of misinformed media.

The discussion itself was dominated by Carroll, who had much to say about the state of journalism, fake news and whether the phenomenon should even exist.  He began his monologue of sorts by first defining fake news, which he described as “news that is consciously and deliberately false, concocted to deceive people. . . as opposed to news that’s erroneous and inaccurate.  [It is] done to further careers, political agendas and more malicious agendas.”

He went on to mention how fake news has real consequences.

But why is fake news suddenly becoming such a huge point of discussion when it has existed for a very long time?  Well, as Carroll points out, “It’s much easier today to propagate fake news than ever before, for several reasons: social media. . . the media itself. . .the fact that almost everyone is their own publisher and journalist. . . and [fake news] takes fire much easier today than it did back in the 1980’s.  But we’d be mistaken to call it a new phenomenon. . . it may be more pervasive today, maybe more influential today, but it is not new.”

Despite these points, Carroll also argued that it is much easier to debunk fake news at the touch of a button.  And this is true, as the general American public has more access to more information now than they ever have at any point; and the access is even easier.  The average citizen has as much power to find out the truth as any journalist today does.

“There are legions of people out there. . . who immediately jump on things that sound suspicious and try to debunk them and are usually successful in very short order,” said Carroll.

Despite the access and ease to information, or perhaps due in part to it, we seem to be slipping into our own little echo chambers.  Perhaps one of the reasons fake news resonates as it does is that people have “gradually and steadily” moved themselves into bubbles — ones that resonate with their own biases and preferences.

Carroll’s final warning before giving control of the discussion over to the rest of the panelists was to avoid romanticizing the past, to stop assuming that previous political debate was rooted in “terrific, civil, factual grounding.”

Belteau followed Carroll, but both Priestman and Belteau made strong arguments for what citizens themselves should do when faced with digging through the mountain of information placed before them.

However, before diving into how to arm oneself against the legions of fake news propagators, Belteau first set the record straight on alternative facts: they’re here, they’re real, and they aren’t what we think they are.  Belteau asserted that alternative facts were indeed real things that exist but were not nearly on the same spectrum of fake news.  While fake news is purposely created to misinform and push agendas, alternative facts are variations on how facts are stated.

This sounds confusing; and it is.  But the air was cleared with this example: one can say their age in years (fact) or in months (alternative fact).  This, according to Belteau, is what an alternative fact is.  According to him, fake news and alternative facts are not the same things.

Belteau asserted that when discussing both alternative facts and fake news, one must consider intent when trying to sway another’s opinion.  Is one designed to point out both the merits and flaws to a claim allowing the reader to verify the claim themselves?  Or is the other simply asserting a claim without much evidence?  In either case, critical thinking is the crucial skill needed.

In this way, we can see how alternative facts are not fake news, as Belteau suggests.

Ann Priestman, the third panelist and our resident Head Archive Librarian, came to the discussion ready to educate.  She had prepared all of her advice on a handout entitled “Be A Critical Thinker” in which an extensive list of resources, tips and techniques needed to think critically when facing and evaluating online news media and media in general was presented.

As Carroll asserted earlier in the discussion, fake news, while not a new phenomenon, seems to be a bit more influential, a bit more viral today than in the past.  And in this age of rapid information, “students today are getting the information they need to make decisions more and more from social media”, says Priestman.  

Priestman’s advice, which was lauded by the other panelists as “extensive and very, very good”, first confronts readers and their biases.  As was mentioned earlier, it’s fairly easy for humans to fall into bubbles or “cocoons” of information and opinions we agree with.  As humans, we tend to accept or value information that confirms our previously held notions — this is known as confirmation bias.

Moving past our own inherent biases, Priestman then suggests that the critically-thinking reader first look at the URL of a site and determine what it tells you.  “Those ending in domains such as ‘.com.co’ or .lo are fake news”, she says.

Going down the list, Priestman tackled website/article appearance, the content itself, the sources and evidence, the website itself, fact-checking/source verification, blog identification and sharing/forwarding of viral news.  At the end of her segment, Priestman suggested several tools for weeding out fake news in your feed, such as Reverse Google Image searches, plugins ranging from RevEye to Chrome NewsCheck, and others.

After a heavy, informative discussion, the panelists opened the discussion up to the audience, where questions were quick to be raised.

Questions asked by the audience ranged from recommendations of solid news sources (to which the answer was keep a very wide breadth of sources to get the complete picture) to the White Houses attacks on mainstream media outlets (which was met with general disapproval) to whether or not websites should face repercussions (legal, social, or otherwise) for promoting fake news (to which the answer was that while spreading misinformation, under the protection of the First Amendment these sites should be allowed to publish whatever they wish).

The audience was wholly engaged and the panelists brought in much needed expertise and perspective to an issue that many are struggling with.

Were you at the Hot Topic panel?  Do you have something to say about fake news?  Let us know in the comments below.