Just like how “fake news” exists (supposedly) because many people couldn’t be bothered to check before “liking” or “sharing”, a branded witchhunt targetting “fake news” could gain steam because people couldn’t be bothered to check first before embracing the notion of “fake news”.
Let me explain why I used the word “branded” to qualify the notion of a “fake news witchhunt”. Notice that amongst all the screeching “fake news” crybabies infesting social media nowadays, it is those with a brand that resonates powerfully in “polite” (read, disente) society that gain the most traction. Rappler CEO Maria Ressa has (or, shall we say, had) a formidable personal brand back in her day and she used it to marshal an influential community of chi chi social media “influencers” to propagate a narrative of “evil” trolls peddling “fake news” to “victimise” the “good” guys (as Ressa and her disente mob defines them).
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
The way brands work is by serving as a cognitive shortcut that allows our minds to bypass the resource-intensive process of critical thinking. Thus, established brands like Coca Cola need only flash a logo (even just a colour) and our brains, wired by years of conditioning by advertising, quickly concoct a cocktail of feel good jingles about “teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony” and, of course to “buy the world a Coke”.
When, for example, Filipinos see Maria Ressa’s face on a big video screen, lips flapping, with the words “press freedom” and “under threat” being shoved into the mike she is holding, it is her personal brand power talking to them and not necessarily The Truth. When, to cite another example, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issues a list of “fake news sites” then clams up about how exactly they came up with such a list, the message gets spread anyway — because the acronym “CBCP” and the crucifix that adorns their public collateral are both powerful symbols of the “truth” in the minds of the majority of Filipinos raised to tremble in the presence and words of the Catholic clergy.
Ressa is a self-anointed “liberal” (by Filipino standards) while the Catholic Church and its CBCP henchmen are dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. But they are the same in that they encourage — no, expect — their audience to believe rather than think. In a sense, both Ressa and the Church conspire to dumb down Filipinos and not uplift the national discourse.
This puts into better context what Malacanang spokesman Harry Roque said a few days ago…
Kung walang fake news, hindi natin malalaman ano ang true news. [“If thre is no fake news, we will not know what is true news”] Let there be a free marketplace of ideas.
Netizens with minds possibly addled by the barrage of misleading messages sent out by both Ressa and the CBCP were quick to ridicule the statement as they had come to believe that “fake news” is an “evil” entity that should be “denounced immediately as it appears”. The fact is, the “free market of ideas” in its true sense, like the Darwinian evolutionary landscape where life on Earth evolved, makes no moral judgement over the entitites that compete for domination on it. Mainstream media, in fact, use their brand power and the educational creds of its members to prop up the legitimacy of the content it publishes. What is interesting is that content that has come to be labelled as “fake news” spread on the sheer resonance of its content and not because of any brand equity of consequence of its purveyors.
Indeed, only in a free market of ideas can “fake news” be “denounced” (and thus, in the process, identified). Roque makes perfect sense in that regard. You need a true free market of ideas for “fake news” to be controlled. But you cannot control “fake news” in the traditional sense that characters like Ressa and the men-in-robes of the CBCP apply the term. The true control comes in the form of the emergent shaping of outcomes effected by the natural forces of that free market itself. Spoilt brats who are used to getting their way by top-down edict seem to struggle to understand that in order to succeed in a true free market, you need to compete from the bottom-up rather than merely whine from atop ivory towers.
Social media has made the market for ideas truly free by dismantling the barriers to entry that kept mainstream media a protected and elite enterprise. Those barriers no longer exist and this elite enterprise is now forced to compete in a democratised landscape. Change is often a wrenching experience, and all we are seeing today are the wrinkled crybabies coming to terms with having to go through such an experience in their old age.
benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.
Fake news won’t thrive in an open system. Feedback now is too fast to correct what’s “fake” or wrong, or what’s inconsistent with reality. Just look at what’s being exposed in politics now. They can’t stop what’s coming.
If there were no lazy people, who are even lazy to use their brains, to determine what is Fake News, and what is not Fake News. There would be no issue on Fake News.
Free Market of ideas is important in the media. Newsmakers, opinion makers and other kinds of media entities, must compete, in this market. The best idea, the best opinion wins. Only those who are afraid to compete, are afraid in this Free Market of ideas.
Because, if readers, develop good common sense, and good discernment. Self serving politicians can no longer use journalists, to promote their political agendas.
I think I have a solution to fake news. Why not put up a bounty system for fake news? People or companies that can locate and prove a fake article would be given a monetary reward taken from fines given by the persecuted publisher.
Proving that an article is fake would involve investigating the facts behind it. For example, Rappler’s Resorts World attack report. They stated it was an ISIS attack when it was merely a disgruntled gov’t employee attacking the place. This article would be proven fake, and would now pay a fine of 500k, 70 percent of which is paid to the bounty hunter, the rest going to the government.
Media companies can also use this system to weaken their competitors
Hunting for fake news becomes a lucrative business and creates a self-sustaining solution against fake news.
Actually the problem with the aforementioned tweet is that he only included news and not all kinds of literature. Teddy Locsin, Jr. wrote an insightful response that literature is not only pertained to fiction, including the existence of fake news throughout history and they also appear in the form of gossip/tabloids. Any written work. whether published or not, is a piece of literature.
The ‘Free Market of Ideas’ concept is used to determine what is true and what is false. Take that out and you only perceive into one idea and when that one idea is the only narrative available, it will make the people’s way of thinking would become stagnant and dull. Worse is that if that one idea wasn’t becoming helpful or probably, turned out to be false. That’s why other countries continue to flourish because they had this ‘free market of ideas’ and made it work.
Quoting the character Seliph from Fire Emblem: Geneology of the Holy War, in one of of his quotes from the mobile spinoff Fire Emblem Heroes: “My father once taught me two valuable lessons. That a ruler should know the sorrows of his people. And that there is more than one truth, no matter what anyone says to the contrary.”
Diversified perception allows for the continuous creation and correction of information- which then forms a conglomerate or a certain field of truth. The cycle repeats. Now, imagine if we couldn’t even agree on a basic idea.
No idea should be allowed to squeeze out of needing to be explained simply by claiming to be above the rules and beyond our understanding.
I just now thought of that contradiction implied in the title. If the media usurpers get control over ideas in the “free market,” then it’s no longer free. So you can guess what the media usurpers want isn’t a good thing.