The Minister of Information, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, is worried about the prevalence of fake news in the public space. He is apprehensive that it can be more potent than militancy and insurgency. For him, it is a serious issue that should attract the attention of the security agencies. Specifically, he is concerned that the vibrancy of the social or new media that is demonstrating an inclination to dish out, in their estimation, what the public ought to know and not actually what is cleared for publication by official news managers. Based on his point of view, Mohammed’s assessment is susceptible to wrong interpretation such that any negative news though not false and is not in the interest of the powers that be can be dismissed as fake.
Fake news, as a media terminology, is assuming a widespread dimension that is beginning to extend to politics, diplomacy and security. It took a life of its own during the just concluded United States of America’s presidential election when there were allegations of media manipulation for pre-defined aims. It necessitated the need for a clear cut definition of what it is. For some, it contains fictitious materials deliberately fabricated to deceive readers. It has also been defined as fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination.
Those involved are said to deliberately publish hoax, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news — often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect. Differentiating it from news satire, fake news is believed to seek to mislead, rather than entertain, readers for financial, political, or other gain. It maintains a presence on the Internet and in tabloid journalism and can be turned into a political weapon. Security apparatchik perceive fake news as a form of psychological warfare while some media analysts see it as a threat to democracy. For others still, fake news is a product of perception which depends on which side one is viewing it from.
Before this term emerged, unethical journalistic practices existed in print media even before the advent of the Internet. There are terms for it: Yellow journalism which is reporting from a standard devoid of morals and professional ethics. Unethical journalists would engage in fraud by fabricating stories, interviews, and made-up names for scholars.
But in the Nigerian context, the term is most likely going to be misinterpreted and even misunderstood to such an extent that it may provide an excuse for agents of government to clamp down on media outlets considered fake in their analysis of newsworthy events related to their policies and programmes. With a government that is notoriously reticent on routine matters of interest to the populace, the possibility of unpalatable news filling the void becomes decidedly inevitable.
This brings to the fore the compelling need for the governments, at all levels, to quit the emerging pursuit of perceived purveyors of the so called fake news. Every journalist knows that there is nothing like good news or bad news. Much depends on the audience’s interest. In a country like Nigeria, the audience waiting to listen to the so called fake news is huge and they tend to believe what they are fed with.
The ultimate way out, in our opinion, is for the official news sources, in their policy making and implementation, to see it as a point of duty to be more forthcoming with information on what the people need to know about goings-on around them no matter how offensive and then rely on their sense of reason and patriotism. That also entails getting to the news stand first. Considering the fact that timeliness is a prominent factor in news management and dissemination, the tendency for the government news agents to be proactive becomes even of greater essence.
Declaring war on perceived fake news vendors, whoever they may be, in our view, is counter-productive and we are opposed to it because the line between fake and genuine news is not clearly defined especially in a political environment such as ours. Even in the United States where it is a subject of an ongoing debate, fake news means different things to the camp of Donald Trump and that of Obama/Clinton. It is that controversial.