Others in the mainstream media have said it before: after coining the term “fake news” and floating it as an explanation of how Hillary Clinton possibly could have lost the election (even President Obama addressed the epidemic of fake news during a press conference in Germany), they’d prefer that others — i.e., conservatives — not misuse or distort the term.
Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, for one, writes that the term is tainted and should be retired. What once was meant to refer to fictional stories meant to influence the campaign, such as Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump, is now used by the Right has shorthand for liberal B.S.
The term 'fake news' has had its 15 minutes of fame. Real problem; tainted label. Let's retire it. …. My column https://t.co/UwTcAZ7nIv
— Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview) January 8, 2017
Sullivan’s plan to correct the error is simple:
So, here’s a modest proposal for the truth-based community.
Let’s get out the hook and pull that baby off stage. Yes: Simply stop using it.
Instead, call a lie a lie. Call a hoax a hoax. Call a conspiracy theory by its rightful name. After all, “fake news” is an imprecise expression to begin with.
But what about stories like the Washington Post’s scoop about the Russians hacking into the U.S. electrical grid? It wasn’t true, so was it a lie? The Post had to have had some agenda in mind to print the story without verifying it … sounds a lot like fake news. Calling it an error doesn’t quite cover it.
@Sulliview @brianstelter @washingtonpost I'm sure mainstream media outlets would love to retire #fakenews since they're the guilty party.
— Just a Good Ol' Boy (@JustGoodolBoy) January 8, 2017
Yeah, the Russian hacking narrative has gained so much more traction in delegitimizing Trump’s election; it’s kind of embarrassing to keep being bitten in the behind by “fake news.”
@Sulliview @brianstelter oh I see, when Fake News backfired they want to retire it! LOL
— CNN is Fake News (@USPatriot16) January 8, 2017
@Sulliview Nope. I'll still use it for fake journalists.
— EducatédHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) January 10, 2017
1. @Sulliview wrote
"#FakeNews has a real meaning — deliberately constructed lies in the form of news articles meant to mislead the public."— Daniel J. AbbyNormal (@HellBlazeRaiser) January 9, 2017
2. That definition of "#FakeNews" is EXACTLY what @washingtonpost did with its completely false "power grid hack" story. @Sulliview
— Daniel J. AbbyNormal (@HellBlazeRaiser) January 9, 2017
@Sulliview People are rightly skeptical of you, and your fear of being subjected to intense scrutiny justifies that skepticism.
— Thales (@InjuredThales) January 8, 2017
@Sulliview Why did almost every mainstream publication start using that term at the exact same time? Almost as if it was coordinated ?
— Beau Daniel (@beaudaniel) January 10, 2017
@Sulliview @brianstelter So news people want to retire the "fake news" label? What a surprise. How about you do your job then we'll drop it.
— Karen Hay (@Greenbean88) January 8, 2017
@Sulliview @brianstelter @washingtonpost how about you just stop putting out Fake News along with @cnn
— EL??Presidente (@PCP0lice) January 8, 2017
.@Sulliview I'll stop using the term "fake news" when your paper stops publishing it.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 10, 2017
@seanmdav @Sulliview I laughed at "truth-based community."
— CJ Jenkins (@UMRebelCJ) January 10, 2017
@UMRebelCJ @Sulliview Yeah, that was something else.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 10, 2017