Fake news is a term that has become current in the last few years. An older term that appears to have some family resemblence to this is propaganda. Are they in fact the same - if not, what are the essential differences?
Asked
Active
Viewed 575 times
3
-
It seems to me this can be answered by looking at the terms carefully: (1) Propaganda does not have to be new. (2) Fake news does not have to be intended to influence an audience (although that is the connotation). I think you can improve this question by spelling it out a little more. – Jan 16 '18 at 09:37
-
1Fake news have a very long history. See e.g. Marc Bloch' Réflexions about fausses nouvelles. The basic difference with propaganda may be located in the "producer": propaganda is mainly driven by power while, especially in the Internet era, fake news can be produced and distributed also by individuals. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 16 '18 at 10:31
-
@keelan: I'm not sure what you mean by 'Propaganda does not have to be new'; Propaganda, when it is produced is contemporary to the given situation. Fake news surely is produced to influence an audience, whether or not it does is moot. As for spelling it out more - I like brevity and concision. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 16 '18 at 13:37
-
@MoziburUllah fake news can also be just incorrect news. It is used as an insulting term and only then has the connotation that it is intended to influence an audience. Propaganda is not necessarily new when created, you can see that now with new stories about the Soviet Republic being spread in Russia. Rewriting history is not news but can be propaganda. Brevity is not a scapegoat for limited preliminary research. – Jan 16 '18 at 14:04
-
@keelan: The way the term 'Fake News' is used in the media is hardly about 'incorrect news'; incorrect news has been around for a long time. I don't feel that I really needed to explain what the term meant given its high visibility. Who says I'm doing 'preliminary research' - you? Is this a research platform - don't make me laugh. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 16 '18 at 14:07
-
You should have done some preliminary research before asking ([ask]). To me, it is unclear what you are asking, because the question as I read it has the immediate answer given in my first comment. That is why I would advise you to deal with that response in your question to clarify what it actually is that you want to know. – Jan 16 '18 at 15:05
-
@keelan: If I did more research then I can probably answer the question myself. The point of asking a question is to tap into the expertise or the ideas of others. I'm not sure that your comment counts as an answer, since there is much that one can question with it. Given that 'fake news' is alleged to have influenced the last American election there seems to be a family relationship. One can say, straight-away, that propaganda in old media required large resources, the resources to maintain a TV or Radio station. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 16 '18 at 15:36
-
Fake news on the internet can be produced much more easily and deseminated very quickly to large audiences. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 16 '18 at 15:36
-
Thus, it's a term tied to new media rather than old media. One might posit that fake news is propaganda on new media and hence requires a new term and one had been found... – Mozibur Ullah Jan 16 '18 at 18:25
-
Again, see [ask]: "Have you thoroughly searched for an answer before asking your question? Sharing your research helps everyone. Tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs. This demonstrates that you’ve taken the time to try to help yourself, it saves us from reiterating obvious answers, and above all, it helps you get a more specific and relevant answer!" – Jan 17 '18 at 16:11
-
@keelan: I've read about it, I've read a paper by a thinktank on how the internet should not be viewed as Big Tech wants us to view it, merely as a neutral platform but as a publishing platform in which case Big Tech need to take on the responsibilities of publishers and not shirk them or get others to do them for free, gratis, under the cover of community. If people work, then they ought to get paid for it. Personally, I prefer to wear my learning lightly. Please don't mouth platitudes at me about how research is done. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 17 '18 at 16:21
-
@keelan: Can I ask you is it the political content of this question that's getting you upset? Note again, that the question also has gained three decent answers and doesn't that point out to you that the question isn't lacking in substance or in interest despite not being spelt out more to your satisfaction? – Mozibur Ullah Jan 17 '18 at 16:22
-
And also one decent comment. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 17 '18 at 16:45
2 Answers
2
Austria (Vienna) to me is the classic case study here. One of the characters of great interest, Karl Lueger. This man knew how to get elected. He knew how to appeal to the petit bourgeoisie. There is very little new under the sun. It's just amazing how this one city in the late 19th Century, early 20th century continues to have its influence on the world. The number of imporant figures who passed through Vienna before , and in the early years after, WWI is astounding. Lenin was there. Hitler. They all got an education of sorts in Vienna. But this is just the tip of the iceberg of the figures who passed through. Even today I watch Austria for trends, because it is small, and it can change quickly.
What I think we have here is a limitation of consciousness. A circle is drawn, permissible news is inside the circle, and many times a busy public has no idea what is outside the circle, unless they put in an effort.
When we speak of the press and propaganda, usually I think of a central authority which can control the content. Of key importance is what is left out. On the other hand, the major players in the commercial press are also centralized today.
The fake news talk came from Trump I think. I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Trump got his education from a man named Roy Cohn, and to know the great and highly unusual character and lawyer Cohn is to know Trump. Cohn was capable of creating a storm of contradictions, one simply could not penetrate it. And it worked, until it didn't work, but for a long time it worked for Cohn.
Is the American press good? Is it doing it's job for the American public? No, of course not. But it is not as bad as Trump says it is. The normal operation of the American press is to titillate the public but not to really rock the boat. We don't want people to stop shopping.
So fake news seems to be a charge, like an indictment of the press, but it sticks at least a little bit because there is some truth to it.
Who is the philosopher here? Probably Baudrillard. The news is written, for the most part, before it happens. The story is ready before the event even happens. We also have Marcuse, the totally administered society and individual.
After saying all this, however, it must be pointed out that many people who care to find the truth (or something close to it) can find it. They may not want to find it. It may not all come out at one time, but they can find it. And finally, regarding America, we are a big country. It is just hard to fool everybody all the time.
Gordon
- 1,709
- 1
- 9
- 14
-
-
1I'm not sure. I think he taught at European graduate school late in life. He probably knew the net, but maybe not before he wrote his important stuff. – Gordon Jan 16 '18 at 08:30
2
Propaganda can be true. It is merely communicative discourse addressed to a mass audience for the purpose for getting the audience to accept a particular view or to support a particular policy. Refinements are possible but that's basically what it is - and clearly, despite 'propaganda's present-day primarily negative connotations, the view may be correct and the policy just and efficient.
P1 - call this propaganda which is true (like much of the Allied propaganda directed against National Socialist Germany in 1939-45).
P2 - call this propaganda which is false. Much of the 'communicative discourse' used by the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe in later years was false. As was that used by the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
P3 - call this half-truth propaganda. An example would be a claim made by the Spanish Embassy (UK) in the 1960s that Franco ended the Spanish Civil War (1936-9). The Embassy failed to mention that Franco also started the war.
Fake news - this is a vague and evolving term. It seems primarily to mean false stories circulating on social or mass media. This makes a straight link with P2. If there is a difference, and I'm doubtful, it is that 'propaganda' has traditionally been associated with governments and states. 'Fake news', by contrast, has usually no such central political source.
Geoffrey Thomas
- 35,647
- 4
- 43
- 146
-
Right, the term first only applied to your P1. Obviously the office of the Propagandator Fide (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12456a.htm) is the source of the term 'propaganda'. And clearly they would like to think the best propaganda is the Truth, which should compel all to believe. – Jan 17 '18 at 00:54
-
@jobermark: That reminds me of Orwells 1984, where he described the Ministry of Truth, which on dis-entangling his doublespeak, is in fact the Ministry of Lies. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 17 '18 at 08:11
-