726743

research-article2017
MCS0010.1177/0163443717726743Media, Culture & SocietyCorner

Crosscurrents

Media, Culture & Society

Fake news, post-truth and

2017, Vol. 39(7) 1100­–1107
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
media–political change sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0163443717726743
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717726743
journals.sagepub.com/home/mcs

John Corner
University of Leeds, UK

James Ball, Post-Truth: How Bullshit Conquered the World. London: Biteback, 2017
Paul Levinson, Fake News in Real Context. New York: Connected Editions, 2017
Matthew D’Ancona, Post Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back. London: Ebury,
2017
Ari Rabin-Havt and Media Matters, Lies, Incorporated: The World of Post-Truth Politics. New York:
Anchor Books, 2016

Media researchers may well experience a degree of difficulty in relating to the strident
arrival of ‘post-truth’ and ‘fake news’ as key markers of the current media–political situ-
ation, the focus both of countless commentaries in newspapers and magazines and a
spate of new books. After all, questions about the contingency and precariousness of
what is publicly circulated as the ‘truth’ have long been central to research across both
the cultural studies’ and the more sociological strands of international media inquiry.
Similarly, the idea of news involving a good measure of often deliberately counterfeit
information, as a result of journalistic practices themselves or the strategies of deception
used by sources, is very familiar too.
It is perhaps necessary to note the difference between the ‘post-truth’ label and ‘fake
news’ despite the lines of interconnection. ‘Post-truth’ is a self-consciously grand term of
epochal shift (trading heavily on assumptions about an ‘era of truth’ we apparently once
enjoyed). As Philip Schlesinger (2017) recently pointed out in this journal, despite its
limitations, its rise as an idea ‘has signalled a perception of change both in how the pub-
lic domain is constituted and in the conduct of major protagonists in the media-political
sphere’ (p. 603). A change does indeed seem to be occurring but the more tightly that the
focus is placed on the political sphere, perhaps the less the sense of shock that should be
delivered by the phrase given the long and amply documented history of strategic decep-
tion here. ‘Fake news’, however, seems a snappy identifier of a kind of a fraudulent
media product (the negative judgement and the sense of intention are even stronger than

Corresponding author:
John Corner, School of Media and Communication, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Corner 1101

with, say, ‘bias’ or even with Chomsky’s distorting, propagandistic ‘filters’) and it carries
far less by way of philosophical baggage. Of course it, too, has various precedents as a
designator. It is worth noting how, at the moment, it opens out on to two rather different
sets of questions – one concerning the degree of prevalence of the ‘false’ within the news
ecology and another concerning the use of the term by governments to denounce news
accounts which conflict with their own publicity. The Trump phenomenon is perhaps
finally more about ‘false speech’ (or tweets) than it is about ‘fake news’, thereby con-
necting with the history of political lying (well reviewed in Jay, 2010) but it has effec-
tively commandeered the latter label for the purposes of an ultra-conservative defence
against scrutiny and criticism.
Reading these books, no doubt soon to be joined by others, we might speculate where
we would be on the issues they address were it not for the Trump campaign and the first
months of his Presidency. Even for British writers, with the Brexit campaign concerning
EU membership sharply in mind, it is pre-eminently the Trump campaign and the Trump
mode of presidential communication which have taken matters to the level of an issue of
concern about the health of public communication and democratic political culture, as
Schlesinger’s remark suggests. Many examples of this mode at work are to be found in
all of these books, with an unavoidable degree of duplication. Along with other instances,
what they point to is a new scale and, perhaps more significantly, a new casualness in the
use of blatant falsehood as a tool of public address. Three of the books examined here are
written by journalist-researchers and usefully so, since journalism clearly finds itself at
the centre both of what is happening and what might, for better or worse, happen next.
Seeing how the problem is viewed from ‘within’ is therefore one important point of
departure for any academic engagement.

Diagnoses and remedies

James Ball’s Post-Truth: How Bullshit Conquered the World is a thorough, well-structured
commentary, offering sustained and serious argument despite the slangy assertion of its
subtitle. Ball picks up on the now familiar reference points for the new phase of anxiety,
including the farcical claims-making about the size of the crowd attending Trump’s inau-
guration, claims undercut by photographic evidence, and spokesperson Kellyanne
Conway’s rather chillingly Orwellian and now classic remark to an interviewer about how
discrepancies could be explained by ‘alternative facts’. While noting the new and disturb-
ing weirdness of the Washington scene when it comes to handling realities, he places his
emphasis on the rather separate matter of the fake news economy as part of a larger
‘misinformation ecosystem’ (p. 140) and therefore is able to develop what is finally an
industrial perspective on what is happening here. It is, he argues, the sheer profitability of
fake news which underlies its huge growth. Looking at the spaces for entrepreneurialism
opened up internationally, he notes how one Macedonian town, with a population of
45,000 people, launched at least 140 different fake news websites, many dealing in pro-
Trump stories and many operated by teenagers who were able to earn up to 10 times an
average salary if they were successful. The operations of Facebook and Youtube get sus-
tained attention too as a key part of the larger picture, with algorithmic targeting and
strategies for ‘going viral’ closely examined alongside their importance in creating ‘news
1102 Media, Culture & Society 39(7)

bubbles’, homogeneous spaces within which any encounter with reports or comments dif-
fering in their principal details or their assessments is greatly reduced. The difficulty of
getting a clearer framework of legal accountability in relation to the major players here,
the subject of ongoing discussion, is recognised alongside the limitations of the recent
initiatives for ‘monitoring and correction’ taken by the corporations themselves.
Ball is keen to emphasise how the idea of ‘fake news’ must not become established as
what he calls the ‘pantomime villain’ in lazy accounts of ‘post-truth’ (p. 127) and that it
should not be allowed to conceal the fact that contemporary problems with the news and
the circulation of public information go much broader than ‘the fake’. Here, he quotes a
comment by David Mikkelson of the fact-checking organisation Snope ‘We have a bad
news problem, not a fake news problem’ (p. 250). Although an over-correction, this is a
valuable link back to the terms of earlier diagnoses and broader contexts. There is both an
awful lot of news and a lot of news awfully lacking in integrity now in circulation within
different national systems, working within frenetic news cycles and different kinds of
often precarious and sometimes editorially compromising business models and ideologi-
cal matrices. Massive over-coverage of some things plays against under-coverage or no
coverage of others, as the media research agenda internationally has conclusively estab-
lished. This is not a situation in which firm lines of definition or evaluation can always be
drawn. The point goes back to Ball’s argument that ‘traditional media boosts and profits
from fake news even as it tries to fight it’ (p. 10).
How might effective resistance, a ‘fight-back’, proceed? This is a question which
nearly all writers on the topic are forced to address with varying degrees of confidence.
Ball gives it serious attention but his recommendations involve politicians, journalists
and the public in way which finally has the effect of dispersing any strong sense of a
way forward. For instance, advocating greater efforts towards ‘media literacy’ in
schools and colleges may be laudable but the scale of the challenges identified make
this seem (perhaps unfairly) rather gestural. Commendably, though, he is sufficient of
a realist to recognise that the economic conditions in which ‘post-truth’ activities have
thrived, interconnecting across both mainstream and social media flows, are not going
to disappear quickly.
Paul Levinson’s short book Fake News in Real Context (essentially a pamphlet essay)
inevitably works on a much smaller canvas but manages to get across some useful points
of argument. He starts with statistics that might, themselves, need checking as to meth-
odology of collection but which certainly establish strong grounds for worry. For
instance, he cites a study (p. 15) noting that on Facebook between February and
November, 2016 fake news items received 8.7 million ‘engagements’ of one kind or
another while ‘real news’ received 7.3 million. He poses the question of just how far
people believe ‘fake news’ and draws evidence for different assessments, arguing that
since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million, putting strong emphasis
on this factor, especially given the other, essentially non-fake if nevertheless skewed
communications in play in the campaign (including Director of FBI Comey’s announce-
ments about the Clinton emails) might be going too far. However, he notes how fake
news goes beyond what he calls the ‘appeal-to-authority’ of much propaganda and does
so by ‘making recipients feel they are now authorities on the subject, by virtue of the
false news that they have received about it’ (p. 10). Clearly, only detailed research on
Corner 1103

audiences and users will be able even to start clarifying this question of the forms of
cognitive and affective engagement and their consequences. However, some of the avail-
able information about the number of American citizens who, for example, continue to
believe the ‘birther’ accounts that Obama was not by nationality a legitimate candidate
for the Presidency, certainly give cause for concern.
Levinson looks at the rapid ramping up of Trump’s accusations regarding the main-
stream media as a ‘fake news’ source when he was President-elect, moving from dis-
missal of specific items through to the much more general (‘you’re fake news’ to CNN
reporters, my italics) and on to freestyle condemnation in response to polls showing his
loss of popularity once President (‘any negative polls are fake news, just like CNN,
ABC, NBC polls during the election’).
He takes heart from indications that there is a rise in engagement with serious journal-
ism as a result of the uncertainty surrounding many ‘stories’, but it would clearly be
wrong to invest too much in this. The reach and appeal of the ‘misinformation ecosystem’
goes well beyond the readerships and audiences of extended serious reporting. He points
to the risks of some counter-moves too, like the decision in May 2017 of CNN, ABC, CBS
and NBC not to carry an ad by Trump loyalists criticising the networks of purveying fake
news. This (quite understandable) decision brought the accusation, selective with its facts,
that the mainstream media were quite capable of limiting freedom of speech in breach of
the spirit of First Amendment when it conflicted with their own interests. The incident
also shows how an increasingly blurred relationship between editorial and advertising
material in many outlets can complicate general perceptions of what the news is as an
informational product and the standards by which it should be judged.
Matthew D’Ancona’s Post Truth is offered as a succinct summary of key issues but
its intellectual reach is a broad one. In his introductory pages, D’Ancona connects back
to a 1992 article by Steve Tisich which, considering the effect of recent US scandals,
including Iran-Contra, noted that ‘we have, as a free people, freely decided we want to
live in some post-truth world’ (p. 9). The ironic ‘voluntarism’ at work here notwith-
standing, the link back to earlier usage and earlier perceptions of a critical shift is use-
ful. Taking some of his early examples from the UK Brexit debate before moving on
to the current US situation, D’Ancona raises some sharp analytic questions about
belief and falsehood and about the increased importance of emotionally appealing
story-telling in contemporary political communication. Like Ball, he places emphasis
on narrative form as being as significant as informational units (facts or falsehoods)
when it comes to strength of appeal and breadth of circulation. Along with the delivery
of affective satisfactions, this is one strand of the link with the attractions of conspiracy
theory that is clearly at work in some fake news accounts. Also like Ball, and other
writers on the theme, he is drawn to move away at points from an immediate concern
with communicative practices and political structures to consider the psychosocial,
indeed neurological, factors at work in the construction of contemporary subjectivity
and the ‘civic self’. Again, speculation on this, although fascinating, finally becomes
rather empty until more research evidence about attitudes to news and changing habits
of political attitude-formation is forthcoming.
There is a danger, one which he just about avoids, in connecting too directly the UK’s
Brexit referendum with the Trump campaign and its aftermath, even if finally they can
1104 Media, Culture & Society 39(7)

be seen as parts of a broader phenomenon. The Brexit vote, on both sides of the issue,
was essentially a battle of political propaganda with its precedents in electoral campaign-
ing. What distinguished it was the sheer degree of strategic falsehood employed in the
service of persuasion and (certainly with a connection to Trump here) the often intemper-
ate populist rhetoric of change wedded to a nationalist political imaginary steeped in
nostalgia. This was pithily codified in the ‘Leave’ slogan ‘Take Back Control’. What it
clearly didn’t have was that sense of ‘individual ‘outsider’ takes on corrupt establish-
ment’ which so sharply characterised the narrative generated by Trump.
D’Ancona, as noted, tracks back to earlier signs of a problem in different spheres: the
financial crisis of 2008 he regards as a key moment in the reduction of trust in official
public accounts (although he could have said a lot more here about the impact of the
propaganda surrounding the invasion of Iraq). He examines how the changing trust pro-
file of the debate about climate-change has introduced further levels of scepticism (and
confusions about the relation between evidence and opinion) into public perceptions. He
suggestively looks at satire shows’ almost continuous playful engagement with questions
of public truth. Here, Stephen Colbert’s idea of ‘truthiness’ from 2005 onwards as
deployed in his US TV show is a perceptive, influential and witty forerunner of ‘post-
truth’ anxieties (as Colbert himself has sharply pointed out).
Ranging further than the other authors, D’Ancona connects with questions about how
the deconstructive ideas of postmodernism might have made the path to relativism that
much easier and therefore how a tendency towards a ‘new realism’ would help. It is cer-
tainly correct that what we can call questions of uncertainty and of relativism have been
asked more strongly in many parts of academic inquiry, developing beyond the estab-
lished forms of intellectual scepticism. In areas of communication research, perhaps par-
ticularly parts of cultural studies, levels of scepticism have sometimes moved from
finding it more difficult to ground argument in evidence to reflecting on whether there is
such a thing as ‘evidence’ at all. The implications of this perspective for taking up posi-
tions, either in advocacy or critique, on the production and circulation of public knowl-
edge are clearly troublesome to say the least. However, the impact of postmodernism
outside of specific intellectual and mostly academic spaces can be overstated (even if a
bit of Baudrillard can help in coming to terms with some of Trump’s pronouncements).
Rather than the history of intellectual doubt, the history of strategic disinformation seems
immediately more relevant to the present situation.
D’Ancona’s suggestions for a ‘fight back’ connect with those of the other writers
reviewed and the more extensive debate in journals and newspapers. An increased pro-
fessional and public scrutiny of what is in circulation is seen to be required, a new
emphasis on civic ‘due diligence’ should be placed and resourceful ‘counter narratives’
offered against the falsehoods and distortions in circulation. Once again, the list of
imperatives, each one of them worthy, does nothing to diminish the sense of a response
whose effectiveness in relation to the problem as described is deeply uncertain.1
Because of this, the book’s exhortatory finish, citing Churchill and Martin Luther
King to buttress the belief that ‘truth will out’ fails to convince. Moreover, its tone is
rather out of keeping with the forensic and unavoidably pessimistic analysis that the
earlier chapters offer. D’Ancona is not, of course, the first media analyst to have a prob-
lem keeping the reader firmly on board when moving from diagnosis to possible cures.
Corner 1105

Ari Rabin-Havt’s Lies, Incorporated is the only 2016 publication here and its writing
goes back at least to 2015, when what constitutes the vivid political foreground of the
newer crop of books and commentary had yet to develop a full presence. This allows the
remark at the end that ‘the culture of Washington needs to change so lies are no longer
an accepted part of the discourse’ (p. 192). Read in the context of what was going to hap-
pen 12 months after publication, this is truly a resounding statement of hope unfulfilled.
Rabin-Havt’s project is essentially a critical history of political lobbying. ‘Lies,
Incorporated’ is used to label the wide range of corporate players and agencies who use
the circulation of false accounts to skew the business of government, and who do so with
high levels of success despite attempts at rebuttal (‘lies are sticky’ he notes). Like Ball,
he observes how the mainstream itself becomes involved even when it is not the source
of the accounts:

Lies, Incorporated succeeds by taking advantage of the structure of mass media in the internet
age. Bound by the constraints to tell ‘both sides’ of the story, mainstream reporters often give
credence to lies. (p. 194)

The book is structured as an examination of selected major domestic issues since the
1950s, including Tobacco and Health, Climate Change, Health Care, Debt, Gun Laws,
Immigration Reform and Abortion. The approach is to examine in detail, using among
other sources the official documentary record, how Government debate and decisions
about these matters were influenced by an almost constant flow of strategic misinforma-
tion. This flow, which included fake research findings, was fed into the press and into the
deliberations themselves.
Each of the issues has received detailed attention in other publications, but by bring-
ing a number of critical case studies together, Rabin-Havt succeeds among other things
in providing a strong reminder that current circumstances are best seen as a development
coming out of a long history of truth-pollution and truth-manufacture. This is so, even if
we have to recognise the distinctive styling and media–political relations which Trump
has introduced into the mix and the radically new flow patterns that social media have
generated.

Making connections: academic research and the public

debate on knowledge
Although these books make various kinds of contact with research, some authors work-
ing in academic as well as journalistic space, their arguments primarily connect with the
current, largely non-academic wave of anxiety and interest. I observed at the start how
the framings, ideas and arguments at work in this wave are of importance for media
research to connect with. How might it do this? First of all, it will want to put the labels
‘fake news’ and ‘post truth’ in a longer and broader perspective, one in which considera-
tion is given to previous critical scrutiny of journalism and to the wide variety of ways in
which strategic persuasion can occur, intentionally and otherwise.2
It will consequently be very wary in its own employment of the terms. Useful though
their alarmism may be for grabbing overdue attention, they have a dramatising and
1106 Media, Culture & Society 39(7)

simplifying tendency that serious limits sustained critical engagement. Among other
things, they neglect the way in which the current liveliness of the debate about the issues
in different spheres indicates that ‘truth’ as a marker, however buffeted, has certainly not
been abandoned. Chiefly, more developed connections with the existing and extensive
range of work on change both in media systems internationally and in ‘public sphere’
processes and practices need to be made to situate clearly what is ‘new’. What is happen-
ing in the United States is of importance, but too Washington-centric or Trump-centric a
view of the issues will exert a reductive influence already apparent in some commentar-
ies. The stark definitiveness of the post-truth idea needs to be exchanged for more flex-
ible thinking both about the pressures on different kinds of truth and yet the continuing
requirement for it in public discourse as well in various professional, including scientific,
settings. Questions about definitions, evaluations, practices and uses need a tight address-
ing within comparative frameworks. Media research on audiences and users is starting to
have more to say about the changing patterns of engagement, kinds of credibility and
implications for thinking and feeling about political and social life given to the range of
items (completely escaping older notions of genre) to which many people are now
exposed.3 Some of this work needs to be made accessible, both in language and form of
publication, for wider debate.
‘Fake news’, as indicated, also needs placing within the record of media research’s
attention to the core problems of veracity in journalism and the long-standing issue of
just what the ‘news’ as a term covers and what it doesn’t. The lengthy pedigree of ‘fak-
ery’ needs highlighting. I remarked above how it is perhaps ‘false speech’ that is now the
key factor playing out in Washington, raising long-standing issues of a different nature to
those surrounding journalism, however closely interwoven they become. Of course,
alongside much of what is happening, although mostly in the background within these
debates, is the changing socio-economic conditions in which citizenship is now lived in
many countries and the suspicions towards perceived forms of the ‘official’ and the
‘established’ which are thereby being generated. Such suspicions can drive democratic
change but they can also present an opening for further, novel modes of the unreliable
and the deliberately untrue.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.

Notes
1. Here, see the argument by journalist-academic Beckett (2017), that the ‘fake news’ debate
provides a welcome opportunity for journalists to promote and improve the integrity of
responsible professional journalism. Richardson (2017) also examines the challenges posed
for journalist trainers.
2. Among a wide range of historical and contemporary publications, the 6th edition of Jowett
and O’Donnell (2016) attempts to overview perspectives on the continuingly problematic
notion of ‘propaganda’ while Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzch (2009) bring together a num-
ber of studies which investigate the ways in which ‘truth’ is located in forms of journalism.
Corner 1107

3. Among a growing number of more specific studies, Mihailidis and Viotty (2016) offer a
recent account of emerging tendencies in relation to notions of media literacy and Khaldarova
and Pantti (2016) analyse the impact of fake news on the situation in the Ukraine. Among
many other sources, see the many debate and commentary pieces posted on the website of the
Columbia Journalism Review (https://www.cjr.org/) and the range of academic submissions
to the recent ‘Fake News’ inquiry of a British Parliamentary Committee (UK Parliament,
2017).

References
Beckett C (2017) Fake news: the best thing that has happened to journalism. Available at: http://
eprints.lse.ac.uk/76568/1/blogs.lse.ac.uk-Fake%20news%20the%20best%20thing%20
thats%20happened%20to%20journalism.pdf (accessed 1 June 2017).
Jay M (2010) The Virtues of Mendacity: On Lying in Politics. Charlottesville, VA: University of
Virginia Press.
Jowett G and McDonnell V (2014) Propaganda & Persuasion, 6th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA;
London: Sage.
Khaldarova I and Pantti M (2016) Fake news: the narrative battle over the Ukrainian conflict.
Journalism Practice 10(7): 891–901.
Mihailidis P and Viotta S (2017) Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: civic expression, fake
news and the role of media literacies in ‘post fact’ society. American Behavioral Scientist
61: 441–454.
Richardson N (2017) Fake news and journalism education. Asia Pacific Media Educator 27: 1–9.
Schlesinger P (2017) Book review of John Nerone: the media and public life: a history. Media,
Culture & Society 39(4): 603–606.
UK Parliament (2017) Fake news inquiry: publications. Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/
business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/
inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/publications/ (accessed 1 June 2017).
Wahl-Jorgensen K and Hanitzch T (eds) (2009) Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York;
Abingdon: Routledge.