Fake news, social media and “The death of truth”

We live in an age of alternative facts. More and more Americans get their information almost exclusively from sources that reflect their own political views. And then, of course, there's social media, where there are few (if any) filters between users and a vast world of misinformation.

For example, on July 13, a sniper came within a whisker of assassinating Donald Trump as he spoke at an outdoor rally in Pennsylvania. Within minutes, social media was abuzz with uninformed speculation. One woman posted, “Who did it? I bet it was the government itself. They're all on the same side.”

Koppel said: “We have no idea who she is, she has no particular credibility. Why should I even care that she's out there?”

“Because it could potentially have an audience,” said journalist and author Steven Brill. “If the algorithm pushes it forward, it could be seen by millions of people.”

And then this message on X (formerly Twitter): “You mean to tell me the Secret Service had a guy with a gun climb onto a roof just 450 feet from Trump? Inside job.” This message has been viewed seven million times and counting.

Brill said: “We've reached a point where nobody believes anything anymore. Truth as a concept is really in danger. It's questionable.”

The cumulative effect of the lies and distortions continues to grow, so much so that Brill titled his new book “The Death of Truth.” “There are facts,” he said, “and it used to be the case in this world that people could at least agree on the same facts and then discuss what to do with those facts.”

But we are losing touch with our shared reality. Brill's company NewsGuard is trying to counteract this. Its approximately 40 employees worldwide investigate and evaluate the credibility of online news and information sources.

It's a finger in the dyke because there is no price to pay. Almost 30 years ago, the federal government decided that internet platforms are like telephone companies. You can't sue the telephone company for what a caller says in a telephone conversation.

Brill said: “They inserted a three-paragraph section called Section 230, which said that these [internet] The editors would not be responsible for what was published in their chat rooms.”

Instead, it left the Internet essentially without any enforceable rules. Social media companies exercise only limited control and allow the spread of lies, fake news and intentionally divisive content.

The flood of allegedly Moscow-backed content provoked an angry response from the United States last week.

But the greatest damage is home-grown, by national and supposedly local media. “There are more fake news sites posing as legitimate local news in the United States than there are legitimate local newspaper sites,” Brill said. “Neither side has a monopoly on virtue here. To give just one example, the most effective fake local news sites are funded by liberal political action committees. And they're pretty self-righteous about it. When I interviewed them, they basically said, 'Well, the others are doing it, so we'll do it too.' But it undermines democracy.”

And then, says Brill, we are just beginning to understand the full potential of artificial intelligence. Note that none of these images are real:

Brill said: “It confuses everything because you don't know if something is a hoax, political propaganda or a deep fake. You just don't know what to believe.”

Koppel asked: “Is it possible to hold clean, fair and generally acceptable elections in the environment you describe?”

“Your last condition is, in my opinion, impossible – generally acceptable,” Brill replied. “Forget generally, even somewhat acceptable. I am genuinely afraid that the chaos, disbelief and anger that will reign on November 6, the day after the election, will really test our country in one way or another, regardless of the outcome.”

READ AN EXCERPT: “The Death of Truth” by Steven Brill

For more information:

Story produced by Dustin Stephens. Editor: Ed Givnish.

See also: