What happened during the campaigns was that a lot of websites popped up, mostly originating from foreign countries, that were designed solely to generate clicks, and thus revenue. This occurred largely through the fake articles from these sites being shared on platforms like Facebook. It seemed that the fake articles that generated the most clicks and shares were those that favored Donald Trump and were anti-Hillary Clinton. There were some that did the opposite too, but they seemed to be in the minority, and after Hillary Clinton lost the election and called out "fake news" as part of the reason she lost, the term took on a new meaning.
Facebook and other businesses vowed to fight fake news, and while most people from the political right, left, and everywhere in between agreed that fake news was a problem, they had different ideas of the best way to do that. The term became politicized, and the right was uncomfortable that the companies that would be fighting fake news leaned left and could possibly target conservative sites and threaten free speech. This wasn't entirely baseless, because very quickly, the definition of "fake news" was expanded by the left to include biased right-wing news outlets, some of which were real news with a biased slant (like The Blaze), others of which were largely real news with some questionable content (like Breitbart), and others which dealt with a lot of conspiracy theories (like Info Wars). But the problem was that the definition was expanded beyond the sites that simply existed to generate clicks and cash with stories that were completely baseless, such that most thinking people could figure out they were fake with some very quick research (though considering the number of times these stories got shared, it appears that there were a lot of people not doing that).
This, like most things that happened during the 2016 campaign, ended up backfiring spectacularly for the left. Because the right decided to get in on the game, calling out left-leaning news outlets as fake news, and targeting the CNN, already declining in credibility after some unfortunate incidents (collusion with Hillary's campaign, for example), as the same. President Donald Trump even called CNN fake news. And thus, the definition of fake news has essentially become meaningless, because it now means news that is biased that someone doesn't like the slant of, news that leaves out key information in stories to fit a particular narrative, or news organizations that sometimes make mistakes and run stories that turn out to be inaccurate. Technically, fake means something that is not genuine, so pairing "fake" with "news" yields a pretty broad definition, but the right successfully took the term away from the left, which had hijacked it, and rendered it cliche.
So what are truth-seekers to do in the age of alternative facts, rampant bias, overreactions, division, half-truths, and outright fake news? I've been wrestling with that question myself for sometime. I don't have a magic bullet answer, but here's what I've come up with:
- Go to multiple news sources for stories you deem important. If you see something on left-leaning news, see how the story is covered on right-leaning news, and vice versa.
- Whenever possible, seek out a direct source, such as C-SPAN footage, videos of events in question, or direct interviews with a person in the news.
- Seek out sites that are balanced. Everyone is biased to some extent, but some are clearly more biased than others. Don't spend too much time on Breitbart or Huffington Post.
- Avoid sites that are totally ridiculous and avoid sharing news stories on social media that fit your narrative but are questionable in truthfulness and unconfirmed or not covered by multiple sources.
- Avoid clickbait.
- Know the difference between news and commentary. Commentary on real news is a thing, and I am a fan of folks like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder for example, but I know that they are commentators who lean right (and in Crowder's case, he is also a comedian, so some of what he says is not to be taken seriously when his intent is humor). Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher are a few commentators on the left.
- Here is my personal analysis of some major News Outlets...
Roughly center: Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters, The Economist, USA Today
Slightly left: BBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, The Hill
Slightly right: The Fiscal Times
Firmly left: CNN, NBC/MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic
Firmly right: FOX, The Blaze
Far left: Huffington Post, The Guardian, Slate, Politico, Vox
Far right: Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Drudge Report
Insane left: Addicting Info
Insane right: Info Wars
