The Idea of fake news and misinformation has been a historic problem for the United States of America. Although there are obvious differences between the Orson Welles’ case of Martians invading the earth and Donald Trump lying to the media about health insurance claims the fact remains that there always has been, and there still is, an issue in media honesty and information distribution. If voters are not accurately receiving information, it is very difficult to make informed decisions about the politics on a local scale but even bigger onto a national scale as well. Although there are a wide variety of media sources available, media consolidation and polarized news lead to the general spread of misinformation and biased news to the general public.
There are many news sources available to the general public. This has been increasing in the past couple of years due to the rise in social media usage. Citizens are now able to get their news from local tv and radio as well as more large-scale news from the internet and social media. This allows for a higher spread of information and a way to reach citizens more effectively. However, due to the increased use of social media as a news source, there has been an increase in the spread of misinformation and fake news. Due to social media, fake accounts are a major issue. Fake accounts that follow an algorithm and pattern to try to get voters to follow them and view their profile. These profiles display false or biased news that is not fact-checked or verified. Citizens of not only the United States of America but also the whole world must worry about fake accounts and unchecked sources.
The other issue that is plaguing the United States is media consolidation. There are six big corporations that control ninety percent of U.S media outlets. Disney, Comcast, Viacom, and CBS are just some of the big names that own and control most of the media in the country. The issue with America’s current media consolidation is that it allows big companies to push their agendas and filter what they want to present in the news. It can also increase polarization because news sources that are supposed to provide unbiased facts can now push their own right-leaning or left-leaning agendas. This is an issue because when media outlets are owned by major companies that may only include information that doesn’t harm the company. There has been a lot of backlashes and many people believe that the motivation of media companies to use information or biased news is financial. This allows for even more distrust in the news. The best solution to issues like this is public-owned news. Public-owned news would allow for a more trustworthy and meaningful source of news.
Polarization is a major issue no matter what the context is. Media polarization is especially troublesome because it allows for the creation of things like filter bubbles and confirmation biases. With the increased use of social media, citizens can filter the information they receive based on who they follow and what they interact with. This leads to the problem of one-sided news and sources which can lead to a lot of other issues that can hinder a citizen’s ability to make informed decisions about the politics in their area and nationally. Ezra Klein says in an article about media polarization “ “News emerges not from individuals seeking to improve the functioning of democracy but from readers seeking diversion, reporters forging careers, and owners searching for profits.” If a media companies’ main goal is to make a profit, then they’re going to find stories and spin titles to make their target audience happy rather than have any concern for spreading facts let alone the truth. The misinformation effect can be very common when the goal of the media is to please an audience.
To conclude, the media is a very important factor in the countries democratic process. It is also very important to the citizen’s ability to vote and make informed decisions. That being said, there are solutions listed to the issues of media consolidation and polarization above. The biggest solution would have to be publicly owned news sources. If the citizens own the media, there is more accountability to report fact-based news and not opinion-based news. If the news is held accountable by the people, it would allow for less polarization because the news has more motivation to report facts and not just opinions. This will also help the voters understand what is going on in their country at a local and national level. Once voters become aware and understanding of the issues, they are facing at home they are able to be better citizens and participate better in the democracy. Knowing that the media system in the United States is flawed is the first step. After finding healthy solutions we can set the U.S on the right track to improve news and reporting.
Fake News and Democracy: How Are They Related?
Written by: Alexandra MorkAli Shaikh
Sign Up For Updates
Get the latest updates, research, teaching opportunities, and event information from the Democratic Erosion Consortium by signing up for our listserv.
Popular Tags
Popular Categories
17 Comments
Submit a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree that misinformation in the news is one of the biggest threats to Americans’ abilities to make informed decisions. I genuinely have arrived at the point at which I don’t believe most news, if any news. I listen to news media and hold it as open-handedly as possible. This internal distrust of the way the news presents “facts” has been one of my primary motivations to enter the political sphere. I feel as if I am in the thick of it, then I will finally understand the truth. Which is most likely untrue, but it is the hope that motivates me currently.
I think we as a country have a tendency to point to the inability to trust the news as a new phenomena, as if this is the reason we are so polarized. However, as you exemplified in the martian example, there has never truly been complete or true news-media integrity. A lot of the political theorists I read commentary from, from the 1920s-1940s often refer to the corruption that is the news media, and how it cannot and should not be trusted if you intend to maintain the ability to think logically and truthfully about current events. I think that’s interesting because we so badly want to blame the situation at hand on the times we are in, but I think the only real difference is that because of social media and the speed to which information spreads, we are just more aware of the fact that we are often being told misinformation. I don’t know that I think the credibility of news outlets has changed much.
I think that new media can never be fully relied on or trusted. I think that this is because, regardless, there is no one overseeing the legitimacy of all media. Due to this, whether accountability to produce truth is put at the civilian level or at the company level, I think that truth will never be completely upheld or sought after. I think that either individual self-interest to twist the truth, or profit oriented company-interest to twist the truth will always play a part.
Ali, I think this is a great post! I thought it was incredibly interesting how you touched on the issues of media consolidation. When we talk about media consumption and misinformation, we tend to focus on the misinformation that is spread online or on social media platforms, and while that is an area of incredibly high concern that needs to be addressed sooner than later, you’re right, we can’t ignore the issue of media consolidation in this broader conversation. You say in your post, “It can also increase polarization because news sources that are supposed to provide unbiased facts can now push their own right-leaning or left-leaning agendas.” I think this is absolutely true. The fact that we now have “conservative news” and “liberal news” is beyond troubling to me. If two people watch two different network news channels to consume their news, they are likely to be operating with two different sets of facts and worldviews. This causes a breakdown in consensus-building and leads to increased polarization. There are now shows and segments on major network news channels that are opinion talk shows in nature, but brand themselves as news shows. We need not look far at how the infusion of opinion into the delivery of news has damaged American discourse. I also like the solution of publicly-owned news that you propose. National Public Radio (NPR), one of the only publicly-owned news sources we have, is reliable, credible, and does not profit off of the prioritization of any particular corporate agenda. You are absolutely right, the media is important to a country’s democratic process. I wonder what polarization would look like in this country without corporate media consolidation and the profiteering off of fear mongering and sensationalism? Will we have to do more than just implementing publicly-owned media to curb polarization in the media? These are some questions I think we need to explore if we seek to repair our democratic system. Thanks for your insights on this subject!
Hey Emily, you made a lot of excellent and informative points. I think it is especially troublesome that news networks can have opinion talk shows that disguise themselves as actual news. Psychologically the human brain looks for things like confirmation bias and relatability so if a news channel is presenting information that is heavily opinionated it’s not a good representation. I am also glad you mentioned the liberal-conservative news issue that is definitely alarming. To answer your last question, yes I think we will have to do more than implementing public-owned media it will take a lot of accountability to make sure the news and sources are fact-checked, and unfortunately putting that power in the hands of the government is too great a threat so hopefully, there is another way.
Ali, I really enjoyed reading your post. I have done similar research on social media, specifically the creation of Facebook accounts from Russian intelligence agencies to interfere with the 2016 election. I think that you had some great points on the consolidation of new sources by a few companies. There is always going to be a problem in the United States pertaining to news reporting because of the revenue structure of private companies. You also mention publicly owned news stations, which I believe PBS is. PBS is a great source of news, but I think that the reason that so many people choose to listen to Fox News or CNN is because of the personalities. I think that misinformation from these new sources is a major problem in the United States. However, it is difficult to fix because these are private institutions with the right to say what they want, within reason. I think that social media could be a valuable tool in providing the public with information that is important and can be trusted. But, like you say in your response many people are uneducated in the idea of fake news and misinformation.
Hi Ali!
I found this post insightful, and you came to a lot of interesting conclusions regarding media bias and polarization. After reading just how much control a few corporations have over most of our news sources, it makes sense that they distribute information to their advantage. I’m wondering if there is a way to check these large corporations and demand legitimate information be distributed. Also, I agree with the idea of public-owned news sources, but I’m also concerned that those could fall prey to too much government oversight. That could be an even greater threat to democracy. In terms of misinformation, I thought you brought up a great point when you said, “If a media companies’ main goal is to make a profit, then they’re going to find stories and spin titles to make their target audience happy rather than have any concern for spreading facts let alone the truth.” This resonates because I personally have been misled by many titles of news articles that end up being full of content that never truly relates to the titles. This is such an unfortunate aspect of misinformation and I’m not sure how we can stop it.
Ali, excellent post. I love how you talked about how media consolidation (as well as polarization) is leading to the spreading of fake news by media corporations. I agree that a solution to this would be to make media companies publicly owned. I also believe that this would help mitigate media sources from pushing fake news to accomplish some sort of agenda. Additionally, I like how you touched on fake news not only being an american problem, but a global one as well. Despite some sources being credible, we are in a time period in which most of our news, whether we like it or not, comes from social media. As a result of this spreading of fake news via social networks, it drastically expands the reach of fake news and misinformation, ultimately making it a global issue. My favorite point, however, was when you talked about polarization. I have always thought that the problem with big news companies is that they have a specific “type” of viewer, and like any company, they try to appeal to their audience. Your conclusion was great, too. I love how you wrapped it up by restating your main points and talking about how the correction of these will not immediately fix the problem of fake news, but will put the US in a position to start stopping it.
Hi Ali! I really enjoyed reading your article on misinformation and fake news. I also believe that the media is incredibly biased, and it is incredibly hard to find completely neutral media. The rise of social media and fake accounts pose a major threat to information that’s found through the various outlets, especially as more and more people use it as their main source of news. This also has an influence on the information that voters have when making decisions at the polls and becomes increasingly threatening as cable news services die out. These bots that play the algorithms to reach specific audiences and push misinformation invade the pool of real information and sway the minds of Americans. I also agree that polarization is the highest it has been since the Civil War, and misinformation and biased media have had a major impact on this. All of this combined has detrimental effects to our democracy and is a major issue that doesn’t have an easy solution.
Hey Ali! I really enjoyed reading your post about how fake news and democracy are related. I agree vehemently with your point of how misinformation in the news is one of the biggest threats to Americans’ abilities to make informed decisions and with how pervasive social media and news outlets are now, fake news circulation is at an all-time high. Fake news on both sides creates mistrust and polarization as Americans across the aisle are becoming steadfast on issues that they were provided conflicting accounts of. For example, with the Black Lives Matter protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 there were many conservative right wing news sources that were claiming these protests were riots. On the other hand, the more liberal left wing news sources claimed that all of the protests were peaceful and that there were no issues. While neither is completely true it is interesting to note that people stake their beliefs in these conflicting accounts on events. It takes real effort to discern between what is real and fake in the news today as every media outlet is chasing the best story that will get them the most views and it is very harmful on democracy. If people cannot learn to discern between what is real and fake in the news this spells doom for our democracy. As polarization increases and bipartisan cooperation is on the decline, fake news and misinformation could be the fuel to the fire that undermines democracy in the United States and in democracies around the world. Your post is on a very pertinent issue, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and considering the points you made!
Ali, this is a well thought out post. I agree that fake news poses a real threat for democracy, but the way in which the government could stop fake news is also a threat to democracy. There cannot be laws preventing fake news because of the first amendment. Allowing the government to control what can and cannot be said on the internet is an infringement of the first amendment right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is arguably one of the most important freedoms enjoyed in the United States. Taking away this right would be a direct threat to democracy. While fake news needs to be eradicated in order to preserve democracy, the U.S. government has to be careful about the way it handles the issue.
Hi Ali! This was such a great, informative post! You did a great job at pointing out the main effects that fake news has on democracy as a whole and the erosion that it causes over time. What’s interesting is that the term “fake news” was not very prevalent before 5 or so years ago. I find it difficult to even find something to watch for news due to bias. Do you think public-owned news companies would lead to the same result, with strictly biased news with opinions? Would this not continue the polarization already present, leading to more backsliding? Media in itself does have a lot of positives, however there are obviously some many downfalls for society and democracy, as we see today. It will be interesting to see how the country does going forward and if the media will continue to get more dishonest as time passes. This was a really good post! Good job.
Hey Ivana, to answer your question, I don’t think public-owned news companies will lead to the same result. The whole theory behind why public news works is because if the people are funding the news they are going to be more inclined to fact check it and make sure the news is factual and accurate. Also with the citizens owning the news, it will prevent big companies from pushing their own agendas and ideas onto the public. I think it will greatly help the cause and reduce polarization. I am glad you like my post and I am also glad you pointed out the term fake news and how its popularity grew recently. Thank you for the comment!
Hi Ali, I thought this was a well thought out post with an important, nuanced take on the US media landscape! Specifically, I thought your commentary on media consolidation provided a very important perspective in the conversations about fake news and media bias. I think because there is such a variety of channels, outlets, and content that consumers easily overlook or forget that the media landscape is controlled by a select few. I was reminded of this a few years ago when Jeff Bezos purchased the Wall Street Journal. Now, I would not trust the Wall Street Journal to report fairly on issues related to Amazon, nor would I turn to their op-ed section for opinions on issues like corporate taxes or labor laws. Regardless of how much media outlets can promise objectivity, I firmly believe their larger business interests will always take precedent over the truth. Unfortunately, this sentiment can also be applied to a lot of areas of American politics and is a contributing factor to the decline in democracy we’ve seen lately. I agree with your belief that more publicly-funded news outlets are essential to the health and function of our democracy. This was also echoed in a recent Pew Research report “ The Future of Digital Spaces and Their Role in Democracy,” which declared the need for a PBS/NPR of the internet, providing users with independent, unbiased news and digital resources. I think creating a publicly funded digital media platform that treats journalism more like a public service than a business would be extremely helpful for the strength of democracy as well as political participation.
Hi Ali! I really like the topic you selected on your post; the media’s effect on American polarization and democracy are definitely issues that need to be considered and combatted. Your post mostly focused on two issues, media consolidation and polarization and how the two feed into each other. I agree that biased news reporting can cause polarization and that biases can be acquired when only 6 companies own 90% of the media, but am a little unsure on how you feel the biases are directly connected to polarization. Do you mean that biases to paint opposing parties in another light strengthen cleavages? Or is there another point you are making there?
As for your recommendation to shift to publicly owned news, I found this intriguing but have a few issues. First, what exactly is your definition of public owned news? Would this be that random citizens report local news as they see it from their cellular devices without monetary compensation? This is the only way I can think that media would not be subject to private companies, but this sounds exactly like social media, which is an issue that further complicates fake news as you state earlier in your article. Also, the implementation of such a practice would be difficult without an overarching corporation.
Fake news is a massive issue plaguing American politics and unfortunately social media and the unfettered growth of such is exacerbating the issue and making it harder to combat and keep up with. So, this was definitely a wonderful topic to write a blog post on. Ultimately you have good ideas, I am just a little confused at your definitions and implementation policies. If you could clarify a few specific policy goals and definitions I think this blog post would be a lot stronger of an argument for a super important issue.
Great work!
Hey Frances, I am very glad you liked my blog post. To answer your first question about biases and polarization I will say that baises lead news sources to cover some topics more heavily than others and use statistics that will support their argument. This can lead a citizen to believe that an issue is bigger than it is and over coverage just has a lot of other negative effects. A citizen can look at that source and become more confident in their own views which may also be biased. This leads to polarization because a citizen can get more attached to their views and against the views of another group. For example, a Liberal citizen can only listen to liberal news and then become more liberal and believe that their liberal views make more sense than more conservative views from other sources. The second concern you mentioned about publicly-owned news does not mean citizens become reporters as that is basically what social media is, but it means that news sources like we know today are not owned by big business but are owned by citizens. I haven’t thought about the most effective way to implement this yet. It might be anonymous donation-based or maybe something else. It would still function as a normal news source kind of like NPR. I appreciate the criticism and it was definitely an insightful comment. I would be happy to work out the bells and whistles for my plan another time.
Hi Ali!! First, I really enjoyed reading your post and find your topic extremely interesting. I personally am fascinated by the effects of fake news and find trustworthy media and access to information crucial in order to maintain a healthy democracy. I agree that it is very hard for voters to make informed political decisions when they cannot decipher which information is true/factual and which is not. In this day in age, we have access to so much information it is honestly overwhelming and it is easy to fall into the trap of catchy headlines or confirmation bias. I really like how you included the increase of social media as a news source. I think this is where a lot of fake news is spread very quickly and people trust news on social media platforms more than they should. It is easy to scroll through social media and see a crazy headline or post and fall into the trap that it is automatically true since it is being shared and viewed by so many people. If it were fake, someone would have shared that by now, right?? I have definitely fallen victim to this trap and I now try and do my own research when I see ‘news’ posted on social media platforms. I personally think if there was some way to fact-check information to verify the validity of the news posted to platforms, that would help users sift through the abundance of information we are exposed to. But I agree, the algorithms show people what they want to see in order to confirm their preconceived bias regardless of if the information is true or completely made up. I found it fascinating that 6 big corporations control 90% of US media outlets. This is something I was not aware of and should definitely be a cause for concern. I have always thought big media outlets try to push their own agendas and narratives onto readers/viewers, but I am truly amazed to learn of this statistic. I agree that distrust in the media is a huge issue in the US currently and we need to find a way to trust our sources in order to make informed political decisions. Really enjoyed reading your post!
I think because everyone can have an opinion on social media, that I agree with you that misinformation in the media the biggest threats to Americans’ abilities to make informed decisions about policies. Anyone can have a voice, or an opinion and people can be very closed minded to listen to people that they aren’t even aware that may have malicious intent. I do also agree with Ali when they state that the biggest solution would have to be more than just publicly owned news sources. I believe that we would need more politicians coming together and being more than just their political party. Their main identity must be something other than democrat and republican and unfortunately that is going to be hard to come by.
Fake News and Democracy: The History Behind the Theory
Why do we believe fake news, conspiracies, disinformation? How do these patterns continue to exist? Are there any solutions? The article “Fake News and Democracy: How are they related?” by Ali Shaikh explores the relationship between the spread of misinformation and how it has influenced American democracy. Shaikh discusses the methods used by media companies such as the availability of new sources, media consolidation, and polarization (2021). However, in this article, I believe Shaikh scrapes the surface of how the relationship between fake news and democracy has impacted American politics, however, does not dive deep into the deep-rooted causes behind these misconceptions. I believe it is beneficial to analyze why and how conspiracy theories, fake news, and disinformation are implemented into the political realm. As a response to the argument successfully curated by Shaikh, I argue that fake news and democracy are connected through deep-rooted theories that have been seen historically throughout the years and perpetuated to the public through social media.
According to Muirhead and Rosenblum, the conspiracist ideology developing in the political world is drastically different from that what we would consider the “paranoid style” or a classic conspiracy theory we see online (2019). This form of conspiracy is more dangerous and threatening, it is known as “conspiracy without the theory”. This particular type of conspiracy is spread throughout social media, supported by whether or not the majority believes the information, rather than facts and evidence (Muirhead &Rosenblum, 2019). Shaikh states how “citizens are now able to get their news from local tv and radio as well as more large-scale news from the internet and social media” (2021). “Conspiracy without the theory” is extremely harmful to democracy as its perpetuation and believability are completely dependent on the number of people that reiterate the same conspiracy, rather than the facts and evidence which most of the time disprove the said theory (Muirhead &Rosenblum, 2019).
Furthermore, Shaikh mentions how news sources in particular often release information that conforms to their political agendas, rather than releasing unbiased facts; This leads to the increase of polarization of the different political parties, such as “left versus right” (2021). For example, during the 2016 presidential election in October Trump tweeted that President Barack Obama had ordered the FBI to tap his phone. However, Trump did not have any evidence to support his claims, yet this information did not matter as the retweets added “credibility” to his accusations (Muirhead & Rosenblum, 2019). Therefore, suggesting that evidence is not a necessity when establishing the credibility and reliability of the information, rather if said information is retweeted enough online.
Moreover, a particular aspect of the relationship between fake news and democracy that was not entirely expanded upon in this article by Shaikh, was the consequences fake news can have on the public if believed. The documentary United States of Conspiracy directed by Michael Kirk informs the audience on how conspiracy has fueled violence in the United States (2021). For example, the “Pizzagate” theory with Clinton. Rumors scattered the internet that Clinton engaged in pedophilic and murderous activity toward children at a pizza joint. These rumors were not only viscously spread but also believed by the public. It led to a Father driving to the said pizza joint with a gun in hand to rescue the kids that were in the basement. This particular rumor and many others, deemed Clinton an “evil force”, rather than just a political opponent, thus dehumanizing and delegitimizing her (Kirk, 2021).
The avoidance of these acts of violence would be ideal. In addition to Shaikth’s briefly stated need for solutions in combatting fake news regarding democracy, further research would have benefitted this article. With the studies I found, there are mixed opinions on the ways to go about preventing fake news. A study “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions” by Nyhan and Reifler evaluates if false beliefs regarding politics can be reversed and corrected (2010). Nyhan and Reifler conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician or a misleading claim and a correction” (2010). The results show how these misconceptions are not easily corrected among the targeted ideological group. In fact, the results indicate a “backfire effect” which the attempt to correct this information increased misperceptions (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). Therefore, suggesting the more people attempt to correct misinformation, the more likely people could believe said misinformation.
However, in contrast, the study “Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation” by Berinsky, argues that rumors are effective through familiarity (2015). Therefore, “politized voices can help debunk false statements circulating in society (Berinsky, 2015). For example, Berinsky paired rumors surrounding death panels with a quote by a Republican debunking it. It resulted in the correction of the rumor maintained for weeks following the heated debate surrounding that subject matter. This prospective solution could prove useful if used in the correct context. With social media, this particular solution would pose more difficulty because of the fact information spreads quickly (Berinsky, 2015).
Essentially, Shaikth’s article on “Fake News and Democracy: How are they related?” discusses how fake news, conspiracies, and disinformation presents themselves in the media and how the internet perpetuates false claims (2021). However, I believe if more information on how, for example, conspiracies theories, originate and possible solutions regarding it, were incorporated into the article it could have been an even stronger.
Word Count: 902
Work Cited (APA)
Kirk, M (director). (January 2021). United States of Conspiracy. Frontline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXJ9OUco04&ab_channel=FRONTLINEPBS%7 COfficia
Berinsky, A. (June 2015). “Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation,”
British Journal of Political Science. Vol 47.
Muirhead R and Rosenblum, N. (2019). A Lot of People are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the
Assault on Democracy. Princeton University Press. Chapters 1-2 and Conclusion.
Nyhan, B and Reifler, J. (2010). “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions”.
Political Behavior. Vol. 32.