It would be foolish to suggest that some news does not have an ulterior motive. Some Moldovan teenagers want to make a quick buck, agents of the Kremlin appear to want to alter the outcomes of foreign elections and tabloid newspapers wilfully demonise minorities to sell more papers.
But, even though some of this so-called 'news' is intentionally fake, we should be careful not to accept that any news represents objective truth. The news is data about the world, it is not the world itself and a choice must always be made about what data is chosen and how it is presented to us. We should, therefore, be critical of how we interpret all news. As we are assailed by evermore data, the need to question how the world is described to us is more important than ever.
Parliamentary protocol dictates that MPs should challenge the argument and not the person as failure to engage with the argument stifles debate. Labelling 'fake news' shuts down political debate and undermines mechanisms by which we might come to better understand each other, I've previously written about how shutting down debate undermines mechanisms that help us moderate our views.
Next time you hear the term, 'fake news', ask what is 'fake' about the accused source and, perhaps more importantly, why the accuser is trying to label it 'fake'.
Also, share it with #watchyourlanguage and let's try to keep on top of this.
