Fakeness and Fake News

When confronted with the journalistic happening that is the Telegraph denouncing independent blogs as purveyors of fake news, is it not clear this is part of a precursory manoeuvre to propagate the seeds of mistrust?; to allow to germinate the collective assumption that independent media just cannot be trusted?

The article in question is an article by Skwawkbox reporting on an alleged government cover up over the numbers who died in the Grenfell tragedy; and while I believe the original headline was misleading, the article doesn't provide any evidence for the claim but nor does it say for sure there is a cover up in place. If anything it was sloppy journalism.

As this article points out, there are other cases of discrepancies in Skwawkbox's reporting but I think the article very much overemphasises the importance of these discrepancies and is a little to quick to qualify them as 'fake news'.

You would be mistaken for assuming the Telegraph article on fake news is entirely ironic since their whole story was clearly fabricated with the Telegraph even wrongly accusing EvolvePolitics for also publishing a similararticle. There is nothing ironic here: this is precisely how the corporate media operate. This is ordinary in the world of mass media.

Those well versed in Post-Modern theory will know this. Ordinary news is no more real than fake news, and those who read the work of Chomsky and Media Lens will know there are many filters in place that corrupt and influence the news and range of political debate.

This article about Grenfell, which documents perceived attempts by main stream news outlets at restricting discourse on the subject makes one very interesting point:

When speaking of the numbers dead, many mews organisations were quick to cast doubt on the numbers and point out these claims are unverified or merely speculation. However, concerning the many accusations hurled at Corbyn, how often have journalists been quick to dismiss claims as speculation or unverified?

Are we witnessing a corporate filter in action?: the fear of pissing off too a powerful company, the fear of being sued by too a wealthy person. Is this why journalists are so keen to point out the claims are unverified?

The corporate media are full of lies and exaggerations, with over importance placed on the convenient trivia and inconvenient realities conveniently under reported. As Angry Voice points out in this article, the corporate media was a little slow reporting a HSBC's money laundering scandal, a story originally broke by the Canary.

The amount of lies spread about Corbyn is staggering and many of them stick: right wing morons do, it seems, think Corbyn is a communist and think the Labour Party is not a pro-capitalist party whose main objective is to uphold workers' rights.

The emergence of a things identified as 'fake news' is a concerning one. I believe the term 'fake news' will be used in a future attempt at policy to censor not only blatant lies and extremist propaganda but also legitimate left wing voices. The popularity of the term makes me suspicious and there certainly is a culture of fake-news-wariness being nurtured in the same way anti-immigration cultures are gently nurtured.

As far as I remember the term first gained traction when Facebook announced its crackdown. The term is mentioned by someone or another then people comment and critique, then it became a real phenomenon, gently easing itself into public consciousness until people are taught 'Fake News' is something to be concerned about

It is worth noting that many on the right believe it is the left who want to censor fake news as an attack on 'legitimate' right wing voices. I won't post an article because any google search on the subject *surprisingly* results in a list of mostly right wing websites so they are not hard to find.

The problem with the term 'Fake News' is that it is often used to discredit legitimate opinion. Donald Trump, the arbiter of Fake, uses it regularly to throw off criticism aimed at him, whilst simultaneously asserting his own perceived credibility. He arrogantly lies then claims his detractors are liars.

Another problem with fakeness is that a news article can simply be a report of a lie. If a person tells a lie, or is mistaken, it is not a lie to for the media to report what that person said. The result is hundreds of antagonistic articles attacking whoever the corporate media want to attack with nothing to stop the news outlets reporting only the opinions that serve their purpose, conveniently ignoring the opposing opinions, whether they are greater in number or not.

The reality is: Fakeness is governed by the self-described, self-perpetuating powerful elite; those arbiters of truth who incessantly lie, or perhaps under-value the criticisms that threaten corporate hegemony, and perhaps over-weigh the importance of celebrities, or football as a convenient distraction from corporate failings.

This fakeness makes itself apparent after the media frenzy over a terrorist atrocity in Europe, but generally quiet over a terrorist atrocity in some other place.

The news is forever fake: the words of one person drown out the voice of the many, a protest takes place and it is barely mentioned on the news, if mentioned at all.

I have not decided the meaning behind the way the death toll of Grenfell was kept initially low with little speculation of the true numbers. The official numbers are going up, closer to the 150 Lily Allen spoke off, so it is strange that these numbers weren't initially conjectured. It could simply be an attempt to quell civil unrest, to dampen fiery tempers while feelings are still raw, but there are still reports of the real death toll being at least 300.