When Fake News Threatens the Truth

The melting pot seems to have boiled over in a time where Americans are divided more than ever before. Political polarization feels ubiquitous--log on to Facebook and you're guaranteed to find a political argument on your news feed within a few scrolls. 

Christopher Blair's fake news Facebook page, America's Last Line of Defense, certainly adds fuel to the fire. My initial reaction to this page was more concerned than amused. Sure, exposing your ideological opponents and calling them stupid might be funny, but is it really that funny when the value of truth and fact-based journalism is insidiously being undermined? A September 2019 Gallup poll indicated only around 41% of Americans currently have "a great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in the media to report the news "fully, accurately and fairly." At this rate, America's Last Line of Defense is doing much more harm than good.

Blair told The Washington Post, "The more extreme we become, the more people believe it." This mindset is dangerous because it creates a reinforcing cycle of pushing the extreme, further fabricating stories to get the most attention from users. Ultimately, the more exaggerated a story is, the higher returns it generates.

Examples of posts on America's Last Line of Defense Facebook page

In recent years, Facebook has been scrutinized for its influence in perpetuating political polarization, most notably for its scandal with Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential election. Despite huge public outcry, Yochai Benkler argues that targeted political advertising based on social media usage is not any more effective than advertising techniques used over the last 15 years. Benkler contradicts the popular narrative, claiming that Cambridge Analytica's influence was over-exaggerated. But as exemplified through the popularity of America's Last Line of Defense, even if Benkler is right and there is no tangible influence on political behavior, clickbait still sells.

Benkler concludes that political clickbait, much like the fake news Blair creates, may continue to be an irritant, but doesn't think it can dramatically influence future elections. He calls it "an irritant, not a crisis." 

Say Benkler is right and political clickbait only marginally influences election outcomes. Does this make intentional fake news morally acceptable? I argue no because of the other ways fake news influences our democracy, triggering questions of moral accountability. For example, even though Blair's posts have disclaimers, foreign news sites can publish this information without disclaimers or context. Users may think these lies are true, and with an audience of 6 million visitors each month, this begins to feel like a blatant public disregard for the truth. 

Disclaimer offered on America's Last Line of Defense Facebook page

Even if the Cambridge Analytica scandal was exaggerated, this does not excuse the influence of fake news on other parts of our democracy. You can accept Benkler's argument while also finding the purpose of America's Last Line of Defense morally unacceptable. Blair's page reinforces user's echo chambers and rewards the habit of only reading headlines, thus ignoring disclaimers entirely. America's Last Line of Defense and fake news at large has severe implications on our democracy, threatens the integrity of accurate journalism, and undermines the fundamental value of the truth.