The escalation of the fake news rhetoric did not capture the US suddenly following the winning of the 2016 poll by President Trump; instead, the issue has been around for millennia (Allcott and Gentzkow 212). In fact, apparently, the government is not only faced with the decision to taming fake news but also met with the danger of being an arbiter of neutral propaganda, considering the effects of globalisation and the technological inventions of the twenty-first century that have diversified information dissemination and communication techniques (Shu et al. 23). On the one hand, in the wake of the win of the Republican party candidate, president Trump, a substantial number of credible media houses not only in the US and the UK but also in mainland Europe and across Asia reported that the propagation of fake news on websites was the primary reason behind the failure of the Democrat candidate (Hillary Clinton) to clinch the top seat (Shu et al. 26). On the other, many left-leaning proponents in the US have launched strategic mechanisms at the opinion level to counter fake news in the US. Moreover, the communication, as well as research giants in America like Facebook, Google, and the Silicon Valley, are apparently networking and investigating on how to efficiently tame proliferations on the fake news rhetoric.
Nonetheless, as opposed to the heightened tension about fake news in America, the situation has been around before the invention of the print media, and perhaps the use of online technology to share content is one of the reasons that have led to the overrating of the issue (Lazer et al. 1093). The US founding fathers equally had problem with fake news in the country; and while some were proponents for restricting the same through the rule of law, most opposed the censoring of fake news as this could have led to a more powerful and dictatorial government, with more negative consequences than the effects of fake news whose impact is often easily tamed by truth over time (Allcott and Gentzkow 231). Even in the contemporary society, a deliberate approach to do away with fake news through government intervention would mean most freedoms and rights for Americans would be compromised, including the right to diversity in opinion, freedom for expression, and independent fact-checking to certify truth at a personal level (Lazer et al. 1093). Indeed, compared to other developed parts of the world including Europe and Asia, it is only in America where an outright call for censoring both social and mainstream media for fake news has not been effected, and perhaps this is one of the reasons the US remains an exceptional destination for diversity in culture and ethics, human rights, and freedoms. Typically, restrictions on the fake news would mean the freedom of the press, individual liberties of thought, as well as the freedom to wrongdoing in the US would be at stake (Tandoc, Lim, and Ling 137). On a critical approach, fake news propagation is better not censored than otherwise, because it delivers a much more insightful and informed citizenry with all liberties uncompromised, as opposed to an internal or external interference with the press. Therefore, fake news in the American history is pertinent to the immensely decentralized communication and media dictates, and the escalation of the same in the present decade is directly accounted to as a result of the present-day fast, efficient, and sophisticated internet operations (Jacob L. Nelson 15).
The American founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Samuel Adams were well informed about the benefits of a free press, yet most realized the dangers that would present with an uncensored media, considering that most had a thriving career as pamphleteers and newspapermen (Fourney et al. 1072). In fact, among the many enemies inside of the American colonies wanted by King George III’s regime was the founding fathers who towered high in the free media. As it would later unfold, America got independent, and the ratification of the constitution was followed by critical amendments that gave a platform to the First Amendment as well, hence the inception of the Bill of Rights that provided for the protection of the free media. Despite the express reservation of the free press, Americans at the convention for amending the constitution like Elbridge Gerry had grave concerns about fake news then, and he raised the alarm to the rest of the members claiming the need to tame fictitious rumormongers in media. Elbridge Gerry said, “In Massachusetts, it had been fully long-established by experience, that people are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions, by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute” (Fourney et al. 1072). Nevertheless, most of the American founding fathers were proponents of the proposition that an arbitrating government to censor fake news would be worse than a self-regulated populace in dealing with fake news in the US, and so they chose freedom and liberties over limited restrictions that would be easily compromised by malicious and selfish interests of the powerful at any point in history. On the other hand, President Franklin Roosevelt recounted that it was an unfortunate experience that virtues like Knowledge, Integrity, and Ability were not considered as prerequisites for giving an employment to individuals in the American media houses, yet the press was a powerful tool that could be terrible once made into the “liberty of affronting, calumniating, and defaming one another” (Tandoc, Lim, and Ling 138).
Indeed, the American founding fathers conferred freedom and liberty to the press with a cautious insight of what would happen in case competence and responsibility were not accounted for in the press. On the contrary, they well knew how much the benefits that came with an independent media platform outweigh the challenges that could emerge in the heat of the moment and beyond. Typically, while the proliferation of fake news could be quickly propagated, the power of truth in its time would usually escalate to claim the top of the state of the nation (Balmas 436). In this context, it was considered better not to silence the voice of the people because lacked reason, than to engage force to curtail the dictates of the constitution. On the other hand, President Jefferson argued to the opponents of a free media in the US that it would be better to trust the court of public opinion, which is a representation of the people on the ground, than to dwell on the final judgments of a magistrate in the court of law who struggled with bias between falsehood and truth (Burkhardt 22). Indeed, while a few people would maneuver through the system to thrive on fake news and propaganda, the reality is often evidenced in the course of time.
Indeed, the political and press background the US received from the founding fathers set a clear precedence that a heavy-handed government crackdown was not mightier than a decentralized media, whose different publications, newspapers, and news would often put them on natural comparison to make a distinction between real news and fake ones. A practical case is when several journalists were arrested following the France “Quasi War” with the US following the propagation of fake news under the regime of President John Adams; and the backlash in future elections brought down to its knees, the then Federalist Party in power (Balmas 451). Eventually, the party ceased to exist. Therefore, the history of fake news in the US is not a new encounter, the freedom and the liberty of the press is pertinent to the American traditions, culture, and policies and would go uncensored in most if not all, both justifiable and compromising socio-political atmosphere.
Role of Fake News in the US 2016 Election
Immediately President Trump triumphed over the Democrat candidate (Hillary Clinton) in the 2016 elections, it became apparent that both Twitter and Facebook, as well as other social media and mainstream media platforms, had strategically employed fake news to give the president the needed momentum to sway the votes for his win (Burkhardt 12). There were multiple sites propagating fake news at a proliferation rate so high that the mainstream media developed concern, but the personnel running such sites came out boldly to claim their legitimacy. In fact, as the Washington Post and The New York Times would later note, the hundreds of thousands of comments, shares, and discussions Americans gave in response to fake news platforms was alarming, several months to the election date (Guess, Nyhan, and Reifler 23). An experts` analysis on the top 20 mainstream news and the top 20 fake news articles revealed that the latter towered above the former, and that three propaganda messages propagated by the fake news sites dominated the American electorate opinion more than the rest of the genuine media messages three months to the election day (Burkhardt 29). Indeed, it was not only startling but also surprising that fake news platforms established barely three months ago had enjoyed more attention and hence support on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter than trusted, reliable, competent, and accountable media houses in the US at such a critical moment in the country`s history.
The strong belief among many both in the US and abroad that fake news influenced the 2016 American elections gained momentum when it was discovered that many sites to the tune of 100 had been developed by experts in support of one candidate; the sitting President. One of the speculated destinations was the state of Macedonia, where tens of sites were propagating proliferating news in favor of the then Republican candidate, President Trump (Silverman 3). The articles published by the sites had a great insight that appealed to the pathos, logos, and ethos of the American populace, such that misleading the electorate was inevitable. Indeed, many stakeholders have made comments that even though the extent to which fake news compromised the American 2016 elections cannot be accurately put quantitatively, the effect remains substantial to have swayed the votes in favor of president Trump. The immediate former American president Barrack Obama while in Germany, he recounted that “If we are not serious about facts and what’s true and what’s not … if we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems”; a position which meant even before the elections took place, there was a certified insight that fake news was proliferating and could easily affect the 2016 elections (Fourney et al. 1074).
On the one hand, it has been argued that the fake news propaganda was given stage by the Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, to blackmail her then Republican counterpart, President Trump. On the other, it has been certified by several studies that the social media platforms like Facebook were very partisan to the former, hence creating a sentimental feeling that her “crying in foul” for a biased campaign platform was justified (Meyers 7). The demonization of one candidate over the other was taking equal turns and yielded tremendously impactful outcomes during the campaign season, affecting both candidates. In the heat of the moment, it became apparent that fake news emotions rather than reason would dictate the presidential candidate given mandate over the top job by the electorate, considering that hundreds of thousands of voters who were emotional about the messages and articles online then. A recent study on most online messages to the tune of 25000 in the state of Michigan revealed that most of them were of Russian origin, and hence the fake news that influenced over one half of the vote in this state (Silverman 9). Indeed, the emotional appeals that the ethical considerations to care for were the platforms upon which content thrived to camouflage its being realized as fake news at a glance. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that to date it cannot be accurately quantified how much the fake news challenge affected the 2016 polls. Consequently, the extent to which the emotional and behavior appeals of fake news dictated the voting trends in 2016 remains a mirage, but whose consequences cannot be wished away because of the mounting evidence across months and years to date (Meyers 43).
One of the fake news statement that has been confirmed as a significant factor why Hillary Clinton lost to President Donald Trump is an argument that, “Hillary Clinton is in very poor health due to a serious illness” (Barthel, Mitchell, and Holocomb 3). Indeed, studies reveal that the propaganda statement affected up to 12 percent of the former president Obama supporters and that 25 percent of the American electorate voted in favor of president Trump because of the “compromised health” of Hillary Clinton (Goodwin-Ortiz de Leon 23). On the contrary, another propaganda statement released barely four weeks to the date of polls that “During her time as U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton approved weapon sales to Islamic jihadists, including ISIS”
proliferated very fast on the fake news platforms that it destabilized the emotional connection between the Hillary Clinton campaign team and her supporters in more than five major “Blue States” in the US (Burkhardt 19). Consequently, 20 percent of former president Obama supporters lost trust in Hillary Clinton and 25 percent across the nation believed that the former first lady had conspired with the terror groups hence compromising the American national security and the country`s foreign policy as well.
For the part of president Trump, however, fake news worked in his favor in most occasions, and most staunch supporters of the Democrat candidate believed that she did not lose in the 2016 polls fairly. For instance, one of the fake news statements detailed that, “Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump for president before the election” (Silverman 4). The statement of support from the Vatican was the most compromising in the Hillary Clinton camp, yet the most promising among the president Trump supporters. Indeed, 10 percent of the Americans believed that Pope supporting President Trump was an express ticket to the white house, while those who supported former President Obama to the tune of 8 percent changed their choice of voting and joined the would be “winning team” because the Vatican had set precedence.
Finally, it has been certified that only 17 percent of Americans who believed in the fake news propaganda during the campaigns voted for Hillary Clinton while over 78 percent voted for president Trump (Barthel, Mitchell, and Holocomb 4). On the one hand, barely 61 percent of those who believed in two or one fake theories supported Hillary Clinton. On the other, president trump was the principal beneficiary of the defection from the Hillary Clinton camp, as he realized massive support from the Blue States that would later deliver his Presidency (Goodwin-Ortiz de Leon 13). Therefore, while the exact degree of how fake news affected the US 2016 elections cannot be justified, there are multiple evidence-based hypotheses that explain the significant role the same played in swaying the votes several months and weeks to the voting date in favor of President Trump.
Impacts of Fake News on Democratic Institutions in the US Government
Research shows that since president Trump assumed office, the American democratic fabric has undergone rapid degeneration, with more compromise reported for the Whitehouse integrity and dignity than the last five preceding precedencies (McBeth and Clemons 73). Because personal ideologies are justified in the American culture of politics, President Trump cannot be blamed on the basis of his leadership therefore, except that there are enough warning signs that the government and the opposition alike should come together as the American legitimate political class to save the sobriety of the US democratic landscape, lest the independent institutions like the judiciary, the FBI, the CIA, and the executive become compromised the more. President Trump has claimed over tens of times that millions of the electorate in the US voted in controversy to the law in 2016, a statement which has weakened the American voting system; a foundation of the country`s democratic framework (Nelson and Taneja 13). In fact, while the president was barely six days old at the Whitehouse, Trump made a compelling statement which demanded an immediate investigation for the American voting system, and the sentiments sent tremors across the country over his legitimacy as President. Because an experts` revelation maintains that the voting illegalities and irregularities in the US were negligible. Therefore, the President`s stance is not founded on reason and only serves to give more harm to independent institutions.
Therefore, while the Trump Presidency is nearing the first half of its term, many Americans are unsure whether the American presidential elections in future would be accounted for as free, fair, transparent, and justifiable, provided the fabric of democracy has put at stake institutions like the judiciary and the executive (McBeth and Clemons 78). Fifty days into his presidency, President Trump made at least four false allegations in every single day, including the wiretapping of his “Trump Towers” by his predecessor President Obama, a claim which baffled Democrats and Republicans alike for the lack of evidence. On the other hand, the institution of the presidency is a solemn symbol of democracy in the US. While President Trump does not give close attention to ethical issues in the country, it worries many if they cannot take the President literally. For instance, the commercials about Ivanka Trump`s jewelry and dress that attracted no Whitehouse accountability, as well as the reception of over 24 trademarks from Chines business entities by the president meant he does not separate his position as President from his livelihood (Klein and Wueller 14).
The US judiciary has not been spared either, especially when president Trump referred to James Robart (the U.S. District Judge) as the “so-called judge” when the latter defied his travel ban (Shu et al. 24). Such was an attack on the judiciary, and it insinuated that the effects of fake news were escalating to compromise the constitutional sobriety between the two institutions. On the other hand, a close following of post-election speculation of the Russian interference with the US 2016 elections by the judiciary and the FBI as well as the CIA has attracted an equal backlash from the president (Nelson and Taneja 16). Perhaps the Whitehouse misses the point here, that the judiciary and other security organs in the US are obliged by the constitution to keep and protect the rule of law, as opposed to getting compromised by the presidential demonization based on fake news and wrong arguments.
For not less than 22 times, president trump has referred to the legitimate US media houses as “organizations of fake news,” on Twitter, and many more times in his speeches; a stance that has compromised the freedom of the press (Klein and Wueller 14). Indeed, the president as well has been quoted calling the media as the “enemy of the American People,” which is at large in controversy with his predecessors like J. F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, but echoes the sentiments of Stalin and Mao (Rochlin 384). Unfortunately, the presidents rhetoric has peaked in its advance, because a recent study shows 78 percent of Republicans trust what the president says that what the media does, and that 49 percent of Americans believe the press is an enemy to the American goodwill (Solon 2). Demonizing the press and compromising the populace to develop more attraction to fake news than the certified truth by mainstream media is often the compromising path toward authoritarian regimes the world over (Rochlin 389). Indeed, president Trump cannot be blamed for the challenges of fake news because he has only capitalized on the already existing fissures that are compromising the integrity of independent democratic institutions; instead, he can be blamed for accelerating the fake news trend.
Impact of Fake News on Social
Fake news has exposed social media platforms like Facebook and Twitters as media of communication more harmful to the goodwill of the society than the real benefits (Solon 4). In fact, the consumption of fake news on social media has at best compromised the liberty for expression and complicated the freedom of communication. While clamping down the social media platforms to tame fake news could universal compromise the freedom of communication because the world has gone virtual, on the other hand, if left independent, fake news alone can make social media the primary background of compromising governments, challenging the social integrity of communities, and at worst making illegitimate the democratic institutions in many nation-states (Silverman 3). Social media was incepted as an arena for posting personal issues like “selfies,” meals being eaten at festivities, and has now upgraded to businesses platforms where people make millions of dollars. Nevertheless, the latest element with social media is the factor of trending news that goes viral, one of which is often fake news. While it was limited to the parody, apparently, most developed countries including the US have an issue with social media regarding elections and national security, just because of the heightened level of proliferation of propaganda (Solon 6). Therefore, whether the targets of fake news are the people of color, Democrats, Republicans, or the whole American citizenry, the harm social media has caused in the mainstream society has at best compromised the integrity of social media and the operators of such communication platforms.
On the other hand, fake news has created a compromising atmosphere that puts truth at stake over the Russian interference with the US elections in 2016. While the Kremlin claims the accusations by Americans is a fairytale full of fantasy, the US on its part has delivered a 37-page document detailing how the Russian agents caught up with the American electioneering process both inside of the US and within Moscow (McBeth and Clemons 83). On the contrary, the social media owners and expertise companies running these platforms have been in controversy to the common fake news rhetoric in the political environment, seeking to distance themselves from claims that Facebook and Twitter, for instance, jeopardized the US 2016 polls (Klein and Wueller 14). Therefore, efforts from the American government to hold Facebook and Twitter have been countered by the rest of the global views on this social media companies because they have universal influence and the effects are no different in other counties. For instance, the Brexit vote that saw London abandon the European Union remains a compromised and controversial experience after it was alleged that through social media Russia meddled in the process (Rochlin 381). Therefore, fake news has adversely affected social media, in the sense that governments are at stake regarding legitimacy, while the electorate has no certainty in the democratic institutions, hence a compromised framework of the socio-political frameworks globally.
Summary of the Impacts and Conclusions Based Off of the Research
Since the American general elections in 2016, the fake news rhetoric has gained a new platform in both the press and societal mainstreams, because of the significant compromise the same has caused not only on democratically independent institutions but also on the legitimacy of the American presidency. While there is nothing new about the present day misinformation and the falsehood experienced decades and centuries ago, it has become apparent that social media and the related technological platforms that are highly sophisticated have escalated the level and impact of fake news in an international arena. Consequently, the effect of fake news had not only affected the US, but its adverse impact cuts across significant democracies in Europe and the West alike, like Canada, Germany, Italy, and France. In the case of the US, there have been evidence-based arguments that fake news propelled president Trump to his win in the American pols in 2016, and that much traction on social media characterized by fake news outperformed the certified and truthful news in the national press. Nevertheless, a critical examination of the faker news propagated on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter barely confirms more than 30 percent of Americans who got influenced by fake news. Experts have consequently argued that the fake news rhetoric was meant to send tremors of fear and to confuse in either camp of Democrats and Republicans, without necessarily influencing the pols directly. As such, this stance casts doubt as to whether fake news dictated the outcome of the US 2016 Presidential polls or otherwise. On the other hand, fake news has compromised the independence of critical institutions in the country. For instance, the press has been attacked in many occasions in social media, and most Americans hardly believe in media houses that have certified and credible newsfeeds but have instead chosen to depend on social media for information. Furthermore, the judiciary has faced much controversy from the executive, because of the determined efforts to reveal the truth or fiction in the Russian interference rhetoric. As such, institutions like the CIA, and the FBI which are directly linked to law protection and enforcement have compromised legal platforms to intervene in the volatile issues that directly attach the presidency to fake news and hence expressly curtail the America democracy.
Work Cited
Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 31.2 (2017): 211–236. Web.
Balmas, Meital. “When Fake News Becomes Real.” Communication Research 41.3 (2014): 430–454. Web.
Barthel, Michael, Amy Mitchell, and Jesse Holocomb. “Many Americans Believe Fake News Is Sowing Confusion | Pew Research Center.” Pew Research Center (2016): 2–6. Web.
Burkhardt, Joanna M. Combating Fake News in the Digital Age. Vol. 53. N.p., 2017. Web.
Fourney, Adam et al. “Geographic and Temporal Trends in Fake News Consumption During the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management - CIKM ’17. N.p., 2017. 2071–2074. Web.
Goodwin-Ortiz de Leon, Craig. “Fake News and Social Media: Illusory Truth and the 2016 Presidential Election.” ResearchGate
April (2017): 1–51. Web.
Guess, Andrew, Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. “Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the Consumption of Fake News during the 2016 U. S. Presidential Campaign.” (No prelo) 682758 (2018): 1–34. Web.
Jacob L. Nelson. “Fake News, Fake Problem? An Analysis of the Fake News Audience in the Lead Up to the 2016 Presidential Election.” Conference: TPRCAt: Arlington, VA. N.p., 2017. Web.
Klein, David O, and Joshua R Wueller. “Fake News: A Legal Perspective.” Journal Of Internet Law 20.10 (2017): 1, 6–13. Web.
Lazer, David M. J. et al. “The Science of Fake News.” Science
359.6380 (2018): 1094–1096. Web.
McBeth, Mark K, and Randy S Clemons. “Is the Fake News the Real News? The Significance of Stewart and Colbert on Democratic Discourse, Politics, and Policy.” The Stewart/Colbert Effect: Essays on the Real Impacts of Fake News. N.p., 2011. 79–98. Web.
Meyers, S.L. “Did Fake News On Social Media Affect The 2016 Election Results? | Wisconsin Public Radio.” Wisconsin Public Radio. N.p., 2016. Web.
Nelson, Jacob L., and Harsh Taneja. “The Small, Disloyal Fake News Audience: The Role of Audience Availability in Fake News Consumption.” New Media and Society 2018. Web.
Rochlin, Nick. “Fake News: Belief in Post-Truth.” Library Hi Tech 35.3 (2017): 386–392. Web.
Shu, Kai et al. “Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective.” SIGKDD 19.1 (2017): 22–36. Web.
Silverman, Craig. “This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook.” BuzzFeed. N.p., 2016. Web.
Solon, Olivia. “Facebook’s Failure: Did Fake News and Polarized Politics Get Trump Elected?” The Guardian (2016): 1–6. Web.
Tandoc, Edson C., Zheng Wei Lim, and Richard Ling. “Defining ‘Fake News’: A Typology of Scholarly Definitions.” Digital Journalism 2018: 137–153. Web.
