There’s an old adage that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. In the story of fake news, it’s less a rhyme and more a clanging chorus of propaganda, distortion, and manipulation sung by those with the loudest voices or the deepest pockets. And for as long as news has existed, so too has its shadow sibling—fake news. The advent of modern fact-checking promised to cast light on this shadow, to separate truth from fiction. Yet, one might ask, has it changed anything? Or are fact-checkers merely new players in an age-old game of shaping narratives?

 

Let’s rewind. Before the days of Snopes and PolitiFact, before “trust and verify” became a mantra, truth was a commodity. And, as with any commodity, those who could afford it controlled its distribution.

1. A History Written by the Victors

Fake news is as old as news itself. Consider the ancient Roman Empire, where the Acta Diurna (“daily acts”) were carved onto stone tablets and placed in public squares. The contents? Carefully curated by the Senate and Emperor, ensuring that the masses consumed only narratives that bolstered the regime. Were there bread shortages? Perhaps. But the Acta Diurna would focus on glorious military conquests instead. Truth was not the objective; power was.

The Middle Ages offered another kind of fake news—church propaganda. Priests, as the gatekeepers of literacy, controlled what could be read and believed. Heretics and witches, anyone? The printing press’s arrival in the 15th century democratized information but also turbocharged disinformation. Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses spread like wildfire thanks to Gutenberg’s invention, but so did fabricated pamphlets accusing him of unspeakable acts. The battlefield of truth expanded, but the weapons remained the same: distortions and lies.

Fast-forward to the 19th century, and we’re firmly in the age of yellow journalism. Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst weren’t just publishing newspapers—they were manufacturing consent. Sensationalist headlines sold copies, whether they were true or not. “Remember the Maine!” cried the papers in 1898, accusing Spain of sinking a U.S. battleship and helping to ignite the Spanish-American War. The truth? To this day, no definitive evidence implicates Spain. But it didn’t matter. The narrative was already set.

2. The Digital Age: Lies Go Viral

If yellow journalism was the toddler phase of fake news, the internet was its hyperactive adolescence. The web democratized publishing, but it also lowered the barrier to entry for disinformation. Suddenly, anyone with a keyboard and an agenda could shout into the void—and the void would echo back.

Fake news took on new shapes. Think of the chain emails of the 2000s, warning of bogus dangers like poisoned Halloween candy or secret government plots. These morphed into the viral memes and “news” articles of the 2010s, where headlines like “Pope Endorses Trump” spread faster than fact-checkers could refute them. By the time Snopes debunked the Pope’s supposed endorsement, millions had already believed it. The lie had done its work.

Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter became fertile ground for fake news. Algorithms rewarded engagement, not accuracy. A well-crafted falsehood was far more likely to go viral than a nuanced truth. Worse, disinformation wasn’t just an accident; it became a business model. Clickbait headlines generated ad revenue. Troll farms, like those in Russia during the 2016 U.S. election, churned out fake stories designed to sow division.

Enter the fact-checkers. Organizations like Snopes, PolitiFact, and the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) stepped up to stem the tide of lies. Their mission? To verify claims and debunk falsehoods. But, as we’ll see, their noble intentions often collided with messy realities.

3. Fact-Checkers to the Rescue?

Fact-checking is not new; it’s just been formalized. In the golden age of print journalism, newspapers had editorial teams dedicated to verifying facts before publication. But modern fact-checkers operate in a different ecosystem, one where misinformation spreads faster than the truth and the stakes are higher than ever.

The rise of fact-checking organizations was met with applause. Finally, someone was policing the information superhighway. But cracks soon appeared in the facade.

a. The Politicization of Fact-Checking

Fact-checkers, like journalists, are human. They have biases. They rely on sources, which also have biases. Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

Take the example of Facebook partnering with fact-checking organizations to combat misinformation. The effort was widely praised, but critics pointed out that Facebook’s algorithms—the same ones spreading fake news—were still driving the platform’s profits. Meanwhile, fact-checkers were accused of partisan bias. PolitiFact, for instance, has been criticized for being more lenient on liberal politicians. Whether true or not, the perception of bias undermines the very purpose of fact-checking.

b. The Economics of Truth

Fact-checking costs money. Fact-checkers rely on funding from grants, donors, and corporations. But money comes with strings attached. If a fact-checking organization is funded by a tech giant, how impartial can it be in evaluating claims about that company? As the saying goes, follow the money.

4. Manufactured Truths

Perhaps the biggest flaw in fact-checking is its implicit assumption: that there is a single, objective truth. But truth is often subjective, shaped by perspective and context.

Consider the statement: “The economy is booming.” To a wealthy investor, this might be true. To a minimum-wage worker struggling to pay rent, it’s laughable. Fact-checkers can rate the statement as “mostly true,” but whose truth are they affirming?

This subjectivity opens the door to manufactured truths. Governments and corporations can weaponize fact-checking to legitimize their narratives. Russia’s “War on Fakes” website, for example, poses as a fact-checking resource while spreading Kremlin propaganda. In India, right-wing groups use pseudo-fact-checking sites to discredit dissenters. Fact-checking becomes less about truth and more about controlling the narrative.

5. The Psychology of Misinformation

Fake news works because it taps into our emotions. Anger, fear, and outrage are powerful motivators. A fake story about immigrant crime or vaccine side effects is far more engaging than a dry statistical rebuttal. Even when people encounter fact-checks, they often stick to their original beliefs. This is known as the backfire effect—corrections can reinforce misinformation rather than dispel it.

Social media exacerbates this problem. Algorithms create echo chambers, where users are fed content that aligns with their existing views. In these bubbles, fact-checkers are dismissed as biased or irrelevant. The result? Polarization intensifies, and fake news flourishes.

6. The Long Shadow of Fake News

Fake news has real-world consequences. It has incited violence, swayed elections, and undermined trust in institutions. The infamous “Pizzagate” conspiracy—which falsely claimed that a D.C. pizzeria was the site of a child trafficking ring—led to an armed man firing shots inside the restaurant. 

Fact-checking alone cannot counter these impacts. It’s a Band-Aid on a systemic wound. The problem lies not just in the supply of fake news but in the demand for it. As long as there’s an audience for lies, there will be those willing to supply them.

7. Toward a More Skeptical Society

What’s the solution? It’s tempting to call for stricter regulation of misinformation, but this raises thorny questions about free speech. Who gets to decide what’s true? The government? Tech companies? Fact-checkers?

A more promising approach is to foster media literacy. Teach people how to critically evaluate sources, identify biases, and verify claims. Encourage skepticism—not cynicism, but a healthy questioning of information.

We must also demand transparency from fact-checkers. They should disclose their funding, methodologies, and potential conflicts of interest. And we must hold tech platforms accountable for amplifying fake news while profiting from it.

 

Conclusion: Same Game, New Players

The advent of fact-checking has not eradicated fake news; it has simply added another layer to the information battlefield. Truth remains a commodity, shaped by those with the power to define it. The challenge is not just to fact-check the fact-checkers but to question the systems that produce fake news in the first place.

In a time of deceit, Orwell famously wrote, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. But perhaps the greater revolution lies in recognizing that truth is not handed down from on high. It is something we must seek, question, and defend—even from those who claim to protect it.

 

#Snarchy #FakeNews #FactChecking #MediaLiteracy #TruthAndLies #Propaganda #Misinformation

 

 

Glossary (for non-native speakers and foreign students)

• Propaganda / ˈprɒpəˌɡændə/ n.: Information, especially biased or misleading, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

• Yellow Journalism / ˈjɛloʊ ˈdʒɜːrnəlɪzəm/ n.: Sensationalist and often untrue journalism that prioritizes sales over accuracy.

• Echo Chamber / ˈɛkəʊ ˈtʃeɪmər/ n.: An environment where people are exposed only to information that reinforces their existing beliefs.

• Algorithm / ˈælɡəˌrɪðəm/ n.: A process or set of rules followed by a computer to solve a problem or perform a task.

• Polarization / ˌpoʊləraɪˈzeɪʃən/ n.: Division into two sharply contrasting groups or opinions.

• Manufactured Consent / ˌmænjʊˈfæktʃərd kənˈsɛnt/ phrase: A concept by Noam Chomsky describing how media is used to create public approval for policies or ideas.