Fake News

"Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx

   The Constitution guarantees free speech and a free press. It does not guarantee a fair or even competent press. However, most major news media try their best to be both.
  There are, of course, some that are biased to the point of being propaganda arms of certain organizations, but historically they have been limited in their circulation by practical matters such as production and distribution costs of paper-based publications, as well as licensing restrictions by government agencies requiring broadcast outlets to provide at least some attempt at balanced coverage. There are also investment costs in setting up a radio or television operation, plus the practical geographical limits on how many people they can reach.
  All that, however, has been overtaken by social media and the Internet. Anyone with access to a computer and a minimum of technical skill can perpetrate the most outlandish of ideas and stories posing as truth when there is no relation at all to fact or reality.
   Nevertheless, for reasons of their own, people do that, and for other reasons known best to themselves, political campaign teams, for example, copy and pass to their followers stories that are blatantly false. Why? When it comes to damaging the reputations of their opponents, anything goes. No attempts are made by political operatives to verify the accusations.
   By the time someone with a smidgen of responsibility objects to the posting and the text deleted, the damage has been done, as millions of their followers copy and forward the false report to others.
   Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has declined any responsibility for this kind of content flaring around the world, noting that Facebook is a tech company, not an editing company.
   This is true as far as it goes. But the reality is that it doesn't go very far.

   Traditional news outlets face the consequences of libel lawsuits when they publish false stories that damage a person's reputation when they do so with actual malice or a disregard for whether the information is true or not.
   Those who use social news platforms to post false, misleading, slanderous and libelous stories about others conceivably would face similar consequences. But first they would have to be found, identified and prosecuted.
   Unfortunately, the perpetrators of fake news hide behind labels nearly identical to legitimate news outlets, and file their postings from countries unreachable by American enforcers.
   In addition, libel laws in the U.S. are predominantly state statutes, not federal.
   Perhaps it's time for Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to recognize they have a role in monitoring what is posted on their sites.
   This is not censorship. It's called editing, and can be a way to protect not only the company from being accused of participating in libel and slander, but also assures the general public that lies, slander, bigotry and libel will not be tolerated in a democratic society.
   Free speech is one thing, and includes the right to criticize politicians, government officials, corporate executives and any perpetrators of wrongdoing.
   Deliberately spreading lies and hiding behind a technological wall while doing so is quite another thing, however, and must not be tolerated.