I'm not going to argue the morality of actually trying to censor fake information- I think it's generally wrong but that would be a lengthy philosophical argument. However, I will argue that these two methods of attempting to filter false information are not going to only counteract fake news, but will also be aimed at certain valid viewpoints. I would be fine with attempting to distribute correct information to counteract the false information, but that would require an unbiased group to provide corrections, and the EU and corporations certainly aren't unbiased.
Russian media has a variety of viewpoints depending on the show or paper. Many of the RT America writers and Lee Camp are very left wing. They may have selective coverage, but I have not seen anything stated as fact that they can't back up. They also don't just spread fake news- when one of Sputnik's editors, Bill Moran, accidentally published a factually incorrect article he apologized profusely and was promptly fired. He was a bit overworked, and had attributed an attached article to the sender of an email, making it appear that Sidney Blumenthal had criticized Clinton's handling of the Bengazi situation. Afterwards, he attempted to make things right, explaining that it was a personal error. The individual who had written the article he had misattributed to Blumenthal, Kurt Eichenwald, attempted to stop him, alleging that the article was intentionally incorrect Russian propaganda. Eichenwald offered to help Moran find a new job if he remained silent, and if Moran spoke on the issue Eichenwald threatened to attack his credibility [2].
This shows a willingness to make up a Russia conspiracy where there is none. I'm not saying that Russian news agencies don't have an agenda, but I will say they don't, to my knowledge, intentionally publish factually incorrect news. I also think these attacks display a hypocrisy. Major American news sources have been publishing misinformation throughout the election cycle. On CNN, an anchor claimed it was illegal to possess the Wikileaks emails unless you were a journalist [3]. The Washington Post recently published an article on inaccuracies and bias within RT, which ironically was full of unsubstantiated claims (I know this is an RT link, but they back up their statements) [4]. Many reporters from a variety of news organizations were found to be working closely with Clinton's campaign, via leaked emails [5]. This is just a small selection of these issues, which present a troubling view of corporate media, and their intentions.
On The Intercept, a news organization I regard with some respect, a normally rational and forward-thinking columnist has called for Facebook to self-regulate when it comes to fake news [6]. This is a frightening prospect. Self regulation of corporations does not work, as corporations are driven by profits. The interests of CEO's rarely fall in line with the interests of the working class. What's happened when industries have self-regulated previously? Financial crashes [7], big tobacco avoiding safety warnings and thus killing millions [8], health care prices skyrocketing (remember Martin Shkreli?) [9], and Pharmaceutical industries misleading patients [10] to name a few. Zuckerberg has vowed to go after fake news in a variety of ways [11], but I don't think their methods of determining what is fake will be adequate. In many issues Americans have a very biased perspective of what is fake- just look at most Americans' view of the Syrian situation. Assad may be an oppressive tyrant, but the resistance is partially composed of right wing Islamist militants, such as the Muslim Brotherhood [12]. Would this censorship be used against the mainstream US media organizations I mentioned earlier as well?
The EU's declaration isn't concrete, which makes it hard to point out specific faults. The intention to go after Russian media is alarming though, as the EU is hardly an unbiased organization, regularly supporting corporate agendas (for instance [13]). And their history when it comes to propaganda is not far above that of the US, just look at the British government's anti-communist propaganda from the '40s and '50s [14]. Furthermore, Ukraine passed a law in 2015 banning communist and national socialist propaganda. The EU recommended that they revise this law, but also claimed that it "pursue[d] a legitimate aim" [15]. Anger over fake news stories spread by the alt-right is understandable, but we need to counteract it without government or corporate intervention. Censorship from corporations and corporate-influenced governments is not something we on the left should endorse, regardless of the legitimate problems with fake news from right-wing organizations.
On The Intercept, a news organization I regard with some respect, a normally rational and forward-thinking columnist has called for Facebook to self-regulate when it comes to fake news [6]. This is a frightening prospect. Self regulation of corporations does not work, as corporations are driven by profits. The interests of CEO's rarely fall in line with the interests of the working class. What's happened when industries have self-regulated previously? Financial crashes [7], big tobacco avoiding safety warnings and thus killing millions [8], health care prices skyrocketing (remember Martin Shkreli?) [9], and Pharmaceutical industries misleading patients [10] to name a few. Zuckerberg has vowed to go after fake news in a variety of ways [11], but I don't think their methods of determining what is fake will be adequate. In many issues Americans have a very biased perspective of what is fake- just look at most Americans' view of the Syrian situation. Assad may be an oppressive tyrant, but the resistance is partially composed of right wing Islamist militants, such as the Muslim Brotherhood [12]. Would this censorship be used against the mainstream US media organizations I mentioned earlier as well?
The EU's declaration isn't concrete, which makes it hard to point out specific faults. The intention to go after Russian media is alarming though, as the EU is hardly an unbiased organization, regularly supporting corporate agendas (for instance [13]). And their history when it comes to propaganda is not far above that of the US, just look at the British government's anti-communist propaganda from the '40s and '50s [14]. Furthermore, Ukraine passed a law in 2015 banning communist and national socialist propaganda. The EU recommended that they revise this law, but also claimed that it "pursue[d] a legitimate aim" [15]. Anger over fake news stories spread by the alt-right is understandable, but we need to counteract it without government or corporate intervention. Censorship from corporations and corporate-influenced governments is not something we on the left should endorse, regardless of the legitimate problems with fake news from right-wing organizations.
[3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.a56dbbce8961
[4]: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/368180-fake-news-washington-post/
[5]: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
[6]: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
[7]: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-self-regulation-of-the-financial-system-wont-work/
[8]: http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(7)902.pdf
[9]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/taking-on-the-drug-profiteers
[10]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144321.htm
[11]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/
[12]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9450587/Muslim-Brotherhood-establishes-militia-inside-Syria.html
[13]: https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/23/european-commission-serving-a-corporate-agenda/
[14]: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/26637/1/08806632.pdf
[15]: http://uatoday.tv/news/venice-commission-ukraine-law-banning-communist-nazi-propaganda-not-comply-with-eu-standards-557297.html
[4]: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/368180-fake-news-washington-post/
[5]: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
[6]: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
[7]: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-self-regulation-of-the-financial-system-wont-work/
[8]: http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(7)902.pdf
[9]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/taking-on-the-drug-profiteers
[10]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144321.htm
[11]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/
[12]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9450587/Muslim-Brotherhood-establishes-militia-inside-Syria.html
[13]: https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/23/european-commission-serving-a-corporate-agenda/
[14]: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/26637/1/08806632.pdf
[15]: http://uatoday.tv/news/venice-commission-ukraine-law-banning-communist-nazi-propaganda-not-comply-with-eu-standards-557297.html
No comments:
Post a Comment