ABSTRACT
The current panic clearly highlights the lack of a clear divide between fake news and news but the distinction turns as much on emphasis as on easily perceived differences. What are in fake news merely kernels of truth, suggesting veracity, are prevalent (as triangulable facts) in the news. Fake news routinely concocts quotations and makes false attributions. This happens in the news too, albeit rarely, and more often caused by plain error or, most commonly, distorting selectivity. What is most shared is the inevitability of misrepresentation – spin, distortion, bias (aka, subjectivity of any kind). What is most distinct is the lack of any sense of limits on imagination among the fakers, versus, especially in the US, a contrary sense of journalistic professionalism within the mainstream. Shared elements, however, whether included intentionally or otherwise, undercut journalism’s ability to resist critics and perform its crucial democratic functions (providing information, investigating the ‘guardians’, being a platform for debate, etc.). Nevertheless, there are those who assert that, despite its failings, journalism’s social importance and its ‘objectivity’ render it an ‘honoured profession’ – like science, law, or philosophy – and attempt to define ‘good’ journalism on that basis. The claim, however, too easily highlights journalism’s necessary limitations.
