{"id":37503,"date":"2023-08-03T14:23:44","date_gmt":"2023-08-03T14:23:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essays.homeworkacetutors.com\/2023\/08\/fake-news-and-online-regulations\/"},"modified":"2023-08-03T14:23:44","modified_gmt":"2023-08-03T14:23:44","slug":"fake-news-and-online-regulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/fake-news-and-online-regulations\/","title":{"rendered":"Fake News and Online Regulations"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The dissemination of fake news by online is a threat to democracy<\/a>. Should online platforms therefore be subject to regulatory control<\/a>? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Professional
\njournalism plays an important role in our democratic societies by acting as a
\npublic watchdog
\nover the concentrations of power, ensuring the accountability of these
\ninstitutions, and informing us of important occurrences.[1]<\/a> However,
\nfabrication, fakery and falsehood have been a
\npart of journalism since the first journalists put quill to parchment.[2]<\/a>
\nTherefore, statutory laws and regulatory bodies aim to ensure journalism is
\nimpartial and accurate. However, journalism today is experiencing fundamental
\ntransformation due to technological advancements; consequently, the public now
\nacquires news through digital platforms as well as traditional sources. A 2016 survey found that 35% of people in the UK now use
\nsocial media to access the news, for those under 35 years old, 41% used
\nFacebook and 20% used Twitter as a weekly source.[3]<\/a>
\nOnline platforms have created more news sources to larger audiences, but this
\nhas also opened floodgates of inaccurate information pouring into our news feeds by deskilled
\njournalists. The phenomena of citizen journalism and \u2018we media\u2019 have
\naccelerated the pattern of random and instantaneous digital dissemination of
\ninformation.[4]<\/a>
\nThese activities have contributed to blurring the lines between truth
\nand falsehood, and created fake news, which puts professional journalism under
\npressure. <\/p>\n

On 30th<\/sup> January 2017, The Culture, Media and
\nSport Committee launched an inquiry into fake news and called for submissions to be made
\nsuggesting ways to
\nrespond to the phenomenon of fake news. Various regulatory bodies, and institutions
\nincluding the LSE Media policy
\nproject have shed some light on this topic.[5]<\/a>
\nFake news can be best understood as \u2018the misinformation (the inadvertent sharing of false
\ninformation) and disinformation (the deliberate creation and sharing of
\ninformation known to be false)\u2019.[6]<\/a>
\nThese types of content are being created as a result of: poor journalism,
\nparody, provocation, passion, partisanship, profit, political influence and
\npropaganda.[7]<\/a> They are published on news sites and listed by
\ndigital intermediaries (groups consisting of news aggregators, social networks,
\nsearch engines, and digital application stores) [8]<\/a> causing fake news to spread across the globe. The concerning issue is the channels through which most people gain their
\nnews from are currently subject to no statutory laws, editorial
\nguidelines nor regulation by organizations such as the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).
\nHowever, there is a wealth of evidence
\nsupporting the scale, dissemination and effects of fake news. The debate has
\ngained significant prominence since the 2016 US presidential elections. <\/p>\n

Statutory
\nregulation of digital intermediaries <\/p>\n

A YouGov survey
\ncommissioned by Channel 4 found that only 4% of people were able to correctly
\nidentify fake news.[9]<\/a>
\nThis inability is concerning as many people, especially the young, acquire
\nknowledge, and form opinions, by what they see and read on the internet. Statutory regulation would therefore be the
\nmost direct response to the challenge of fake news;[10]<\/a>
\nunder this approach digital intermediaries would be treated as publishers even
\nif they have not played an active part in the commissioning or presentation of
\nsuch content.[11]<\/a> Such an approach may be necessary as a study analysing how social
\nmedia can improve citizens\u2019 knowledge of political preferences proved that
\nthere is a remarkable ability for social media to forecast election results.[12]<\/a>
\nThis proved to be the case during the EU referendum, where 7% of those that
\nvoted for Brexit regretted their choice later. [13]<\/a>
\nNews reporters found voters claiming they voted leave because they believed
\nlies or false promises[14]<\/a>;
\nit is most likely that the sources of these false statements were from
\nunregulated online platforms. Therefore, enforcing legislation on digital intermediaries would hold these
\nplatforms directly accountable, ensuring they take their civic duty seriously.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

Fake news is also a concern on Twitter where \u2018Twitter bombs\u2019
\n(the act of sending unsolicited replies to specific users via Twitter in order
\nto get them to pay attention to one\u2019s cause), are being launched within days of
\nthe elections.[16]<\/a>
\nDespite Twitter\u2019s attempts to shut them down it has been ineffective as these
\nusers create fake accounts, fake replies and fake grassroots movements.[17]<\/a>
\nThese tweets target deskilled-journalists online, pressurising some to moderate
\ntheir views. Democracy is threatened if people\u2019s views are influenced by false
\nstatements in the guise of news. Aside from political motivations, the
\nspreading of fake news was also noted by users retweeting fake images of the
\nHurricane Sandy disaster[18]<\/a>,
\nand pictures of the of Osama Bin Laden\u2019s dead body.[19]<\/a>
\nSuch action usually goes unnoticed unless someone has detected and reported the
\nissue. This response is different for newspapers
\nbecause they are subject to the IPSO, or a similar body. Journalists employed
\nby regulated publishers are required to uphold the values enforced in the
\nEditors\u2019 code of practice. This aims to ensure accuracy of information and a
\nstandard of professional journalism is maintained[20]<\/a> . However, digital
\nintermediaries are not held accountable by any body, like the IPSO, even though
\nthey have a large audience that is affected by fabricated stories. Therefore,
\nit is crucial that these organisations take some responsibility in resolving
\nthis issue.[21]<\/a>
\nWithout
\nimplementing any strict regulatory initiatives such incidences would occur
\ndaily and remain unquestioned, leaving users to believe false information. Statutory regulation would therefore fill the gap
\nin the law, bringing clarity and holding digital
\nintermediaries responsible for their part in disseminating fake news. <\/p>\n

There is no doubt that intermediaries play a dominant role in the global
\npublic sphere, but perhaps we need to address the question of whether we should
\ncontinue to consider them as mere intermediaries.[22]<\/a> Unlike news providers, intermediaries have no
\ninvestment in journalism and are therefore more likely to filter out news. This limits users\u2019 understanding of the world, as they are insulated
\nfrom opposing views. The risk is that these \u2018filter bubbles\u2019 (restrictions of a
\nusers perspective) will promote misperceptions by
\nhiding the truth,[23]<\/a> \u00a0which supports the economic models of
\nintermediaries because digital programmatic advertising follows users through
\ntheir \u2018clicks\u2019, \u2018shares\u2019 and \u2018likes\u2019.[24]<\/a> By learning from the past
\nactions of a user, news feeds will only show similar material in their next
\nuse. Requiring digital intermediaries to change their
\napproach by bursting this \u2018filter bubble\u2019 would not be in their commercial
\ninterests, as the bubble\u2019s content is what keeps users engaged. Statutory
\nregulation would therefore enforce strict rules on how intermediaries should
\nenforce mechanisms to detect and filter fake news instead of opposing views. <\/p>\n

Moreover, ensuring
\nimpartiality and accuracy is important especially during election time. \u2018A BuzzFeed News
\nanalysis found that top fake election news stories generated more total
\nengagement on Facebook than top election stories from 19 major news outlets
\ncombined\u2019.[25]<\/a>
\nThis imbalance illustrates the significant role digital intermediaries play in
\ntoday\u2019s society, and therefore it is particularly concerning if their news
\ncontent is fake. If
\nnewspapers and broadcasting media organisations are obliged to follow strict
\nguidelines on impartiality[26]<\/a> and accuracy, then why
\nshould it be any different for online platforms?\u00a0 For example, Section 319 of the
\nCommunications Act 2003 requires TV and radio broadcasters to comply with the
\nstandard objectives set by Ofcom. This includes, reporting \u2018with due accuracy\u2019
\nand not \u2018misleading\u2019;[27]<\/a> furthermore, Parliament
\n\u2018requires Ofcom to develop rules with respect to broadcasters\u2019 wider editorial
\ncoverage of elections\u2019.[28]<\/a> Similar regulations on
\nintermediaries would ensure information is not personalized to a user\u2019s
\npreferences, thus maintaining impartiality and accuracy, whilst avoiding the
\nrisk of disseminating fake news to users. <\/p>\n

Statutory regulation of online
\nnews providers<\/p>\n

The dissemination of fake news by online news
\nproviders has proven to be a great concern as anonymous individuals are inventing fake news for the purpose of generating clicks and
\nearning revenue.[29]<\/a> Such behavior
\nhas been identified in Macedonia, where teenagers were found to be making money
\nby creating fake news on US presidential candidates and promoting it via social
\nmedia.[30]<\/a> If statutory regulation is placed on digital intermediaries, then the same
\ncould be done for online news providers, as the same news from online news
\nproviders will be shared via digital intermediaries. This was proven to
\nbe the case as various US sites claimed to be exposing \u2018Russian propaganda\u2019,[31]<\/a>
\nwas shared via other online platforms which influenced voter behavior in the US
\nelections.[32]<\/a>
\nExamples such as as this suggest \u2018misleading, biased propaganda\u2019 is also part
\nof the fake news phenomenon.[33]<\/a> It is therefore
\nimportant to set statutory regulations for both, as this type of de-skilled citizen journalism is a
\nthreat to democracy especially because people\u2019s views are being influenced by
\nbiased and inaccurate information.[34]<\/a><\/p>\n

Furthermore,
\nnews outlets that only have an online presence,
\nsuch as AOL news, Vice, and Huffington Post, are not subject to any regulatory
\ncontrols as they are not members of regulatory bodies like IPSO;[35]<\/a>
\neven though they are subject to
\nsome statutory control such as defamation,[36]<\/a>
\ncopyright[37]<\/a>
\nand data protection laws,[38]<\/a>
\ncontrol is not the same as the additional regulatory standards most UK press
\n(with a physical and online presence) comply to. Without belonging to any
\nrecognised regulator, publishers may have to pay
\nexemplary damages under the Crime and Courts Act for defamation or other
\nrelevant claims;[39]<\/a>
\ntherefore, it would be in the interests of online publishers to join a
\nrecognized regulatory body. <\/p>\n

Interestingly, Wikipedia recently banned
\nDaily Mail as an \u2018unreliable\u2019 source and excluded it as a source of reference.
\nWikipedia claimed the newspaper to have a \u2018reputation for poor fact checking
\nand sensationalism\u2019.[40]<\/a>
\nThese claimed characteristics are another concern for UK journalism, as IPSO
\nregulates Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers Limited) [41]<\/a>
\nyet they are still being labelled as an unreliable source. This indicates the
\nineffectiveness of IPSO as it failed to ensure the credibility of a publisher
\nthey regulate. Such failures generate an inclination towards statutory
\nregulation of online news providers as regulatory bodies are not enough, to
\nensure that newspapers report accurately and without exaggeration. Not only do
\nsuch flaws lose the public\u2019s trust in professional journalism\u2019 but they also
\ncreate a society that is vulnerable to fake news. There is also no evidence to suggest that the levels of \u00a0accuracy are rising or that the self-regulatory
\nbodies set up by the major publishers, and IPSO, are having any identifiable
\npositive effect.[42]<\/a>
\nHence, it may be necessary to set up statutory regulations of online news
\nproviders which will create a more direct and stringent approach to tackling
\nfake news. <\/p>\n

The Leveson Report[43]<\/a>
\nsuggested that such statutory regulation would be necessary to underpin the
\nprocess of recognition, and reinforce the importance of statutes guaranteeing
\npress freedom.[44]<\/a>
\nHowever, three years on from the publication of the Leveson Report, the
\nlandscape of press regulation is still fragmented and confused,[45]<\/a>
\nand it may therefore be necessary to re-consider these suggestions. The
\nimplementation of statutory regulation, combined with independent regulatory
\nbodies, should be extended to intermediaries and online news providers. Such a
\nframework is an essential stepping stone towards a regulatory regime that is
\nentirely fit for purpose in this new era. The negative issues with this
\ninitiative would include costs, and whether a consensus by major publishers and
\nonline platforms can be formed. <\/p>\n

Self-regulation
\nby digital intermediaries<\/p>\n

An alternative to statutory regulations would be to enforce
\na self-regulatory system for digital intermediaries which would allow them to
\nhave significant control in filtering fake news according to methods they
\nbelieve are most effective. Mark Zuckerberg, although
\nfirst dismissing the idea that fake news influenced the US election, later
\nacknowledged the role of social media in helping promote fake news, and
\nproposed ways in which Facebook could help resolve this issue.[46]<\/a> Actions include taking an
\napproach
\nthat \u2018will focus less on banning misinformation, and more on surfacing
\nadditional perspectives and information, including that fact checkers dispute
\nan item\u2019s accuracy\u2019.[47]<\/a>
\nOther ways
\nFacebook could reduce fake news without resorting to\u00a0censorship include;
\n<\/strong>nudging, crowdsourcing and reducing the algorithmic bias.[48]<\/a>
\nNudging involves monitoring what users are writing in a
\nnew post; if the content includes words they may regret posting, it notifies
\nthem. Crowdsourcing allows users to evaluate news sources by indicating ratings. Lastly, the most
\nimportant solution is to reduce the algorithmic bias. This involves trying to
\ndiminish filter bubbles that create an \u201cecho chamber\u201d, where similar ideas
\nbounce around endlessly which is a problem when the echo chamber blocks out
\ncorrective or fact-checking information.[49]<\/a><\/p>\n

Although, some digital intermediaries have already taken
\nsteps to tackle the issue of fake news, it would be ineffective to give them
\nsole responsibility. More useful would be to establish
\na governance mechanism, such as an independent board, that could check whether
\nthe algorithms accord with acceptable principles.[50]<\/a> This view is supported by the
\nTrust Project, which suggests that algorithms alone will struggle to root out
\nfake news, unless they can quantify indicators of trust elements, which can
\nhelp set a \u2018kitemark\u2019 for trustworthiness.[51]<\/a>
\nThis suggestion includes being able to distinguish the intentions behind the
\nnews, and whether it is genuine, or inaccurate reporting. Therefore, remedies based solely on technological fixes or market-driven
\ncorrections will not, on their own, address these problems. Additionally, judgments of this
\nkind need to be carefully reviewed hence, an independent body should be
\nestablished to perform this role. This approach will ensure tech platforms
\nmaintain transparency in the work they carry out to tackle this public issue.<\/p>\n

Firstly, there
\nis no guarantee that only one country\u2019s statutory regulation would work as
\ntechnologic advancements allow users to create and access online news sites
\nfrom anywhere in the world. If users can create fake news, they can create fake
\nidentities, which raises \u2018concerns for verification,
\naccountability and accuracy\u2019[52]<\/a>; therefore,
\nalternative solutions may be needed to tackle the problem effectively. This view is supported by Dr Tambini from the LSE, who states that the unprecedented
\nnumber of fake news sites is a \u201chuge and far-reaching problem that cannot
\nbe dealt within existing legal categories\u201d.[53]<\/a> Therefore, a
\npossible solution to tackling fake news would be to establish a global
\nregulatory body that could operate across borders. Taking such an approach
\nwould not hinder the freedom of expression nor create restrictive frameworks,
\nas a global collective regulatory body would find common ground, respecting the
\nrights of all democratic institutions, and ensure that accuracy of information
\ncould be maintained across online platforms. <\/p>\n

Whereas, it would be difficult to
\nestablish statutory regulation without hindering the right to freedom of
\nspeech, which
\nmust be balanced against the risk of giving states excessive powers over the
\nexpression rights of individuals and organizations creating such content.[54]<\/a>
\n\u2018The only category
\nwhere there may be an argument for statutory regulation is the category of
\ndeliberate falsehood with intent to compromise national security\u2019.[55]<\/a>
\nHowever, such a high standard will be difficult to meet and not tackle the
\nphenomena of fake news. Instead a global regulatory system is more likely to create an
\neffective solution that can monitor all types of fake news. However, the major
\nconcern with creating a global regulatory body is forming a consensus to
\nestablish one, and deciding some universal criteria of what constitutes as fake
\nnews. Regardless of the flaws in a global regulatory body, it is likely to be
\nthe most effective solution for a global problem. <\/p>\n

A further concern that must be
\naddressed is the misuse
\nof the term \u2018fake news\u2019. The term \u2018fake news\u2019 has been used by public figures
\nand politicians to justify politically motivated attacks on journalists and
\npress freedom.[56]<\/a> \u2018What
\nwas once considered a symbiotic relationship between politics, media and the
\npublic is turning from a Golden Triangle into a Bermuda Triangle\u2019. [57]<\/a> Representatives
\nfrom the White House and President Trump have used this term on numerous
\noccasions to accuse media reports that oppose Trump\u2019s views.[58]<\/a>
\nMoreover, in the UK, headlines such as, \u2018we invested \u00a310bn extra in the NHS
\nlast year\u2019, and claims that, \u2018Corbyn would order Labour MPs to vote for the
\ngovernment\u2019s bill triggering Article 50\u2019,[59]<\/a>
\nwere later found to be false. Nonetheless journalists claim to have correctly
\ninterpreted quotes from politicians, but due to the lack of clarity, and
\nchanging views of the politicians, their journalism was labelled as \u2018fake
\nnews\u2019.[60]<\/a>
\nThis labelling is no fault of their own, but it definitely damages their
\nreputation as credible sources in the eyes of the public. A global regulatory
\nbody could establish mechanism which safeguard online journalists and
\nindividuals that may have complaints to online content. <\/p>\n

These mechanisms would be similar to the way the press is
\ncurrently protected by regulatory bodies such as IPSO, Ofcom, and Advertising
\nStandard Authority which provide all individuals with a complaints procedure to
\nresolve disputes.[61]<\/a>
\nFor online news sites created by individuals, however such protections and
\nremedies are not available. In these cases, the only way the news sites could
\nsafeguard themselves from possible accusations of creating false news would be
\nto become members of such bodies. A global regulatory body could protect and
\nhold online journalists accountable for their reports, and scrutinise claims by
\npoliticians in the public eye. This protection could be extended to the
\nexistent online press, to further safeguard them from accusations and ensure
\naccuracy. <\/p>\n

Traditional
\ngatekeeping mechanisms, such as national statutory laws and self-regulatory frameworks, can
\nensure online platforms are subject to similar frameworks as newspapers and
\nthe broadcasting media are, but this approach would ultimately fail because the internet has no borders- allowing online platforms to operate
\nglobally, across multiple jurisdictions.[62]<\/a> Fake news created in a
\ndifferent country, would still be accessible and impact users from other
\ncountries, (as proven to be the case with Macedonia). Therefore, the issue of
\nfake news can only be tackled effectively by all democratic institutions through
\nthe creation of a global regulatory body. <\/p>\n

Bibliography\n<\/p>\n

Allen Nick and Lawler David, \u2018Donald Trump says fake media is enemy
\nof the people \u2013 \u2018they have no sources, none\u2019 \u2018 (The Telegraph<\/em>, 24 February 2017)
\n<http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/2017\/02\/24\/donald-trump-says-fake-media-enemy-people-have-no-sources\/<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

BBC, \u2018Donald Trump aide accuses BBC of \u2018fake news\u201d (BBC News<\/em>, 17
\nFebruary 2017) <http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/world-us-canada-39000118<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

BBC, \u2018Fake news: How can African media deal with the problem?\u2019 (BBC News<\/em>, 16
\nFebruary 2017) <http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/world-africa-38883347<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Bfi, \u2018Regulation and Censorship\u2019 (Bfi.org.uk<\/em>, 2014) <http:\/\/www.bfi.org.uk\/sites\/bfi.org.uk\/files\/downloads\/bfi-media-conference-2014-changing-media-regulation-part-two.pdf<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Broersma M.J and
\nPeters Chris, Rethinking Journalism
\nTrust and Participation in a Transformed News Landscape (Routledge,
\n2013), pp 15<\/p>\n

Byrne Andrew, \u2018Macedonia\u2019s fake news industry sets sights on Europe\u2019
\n(www.ft.com<\/em>,
\n16 December 2016) <https:\/\/www.ft.com\/content\/333fe6bc-c1ea-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Ceron Andrea, Curini Luigi, M Iacus Stefano, Porro Giuseppe, \u2018Every
\ntweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge
\nof citizens\u2019 political preferences with an application to Italy and France\u2019 [4
\nApril 2013] 16(2) New Media & Society, pp 340-358<\/p>\n

Dearden Lizzie, \u2018Brexit research suggests 12 million Leave voters
\nregret their choice in reversal that could change result\u2019 (The Independent<\/em>,
\n1 July 2016) <http:\/\/www.independent.co.uk\/news\/uk\/politics\/brexit-news-second-eu-referendum-leave-voters-regret-bregret-choice-in-millions-a7113336.html<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

Fenton Natalie, New Media,
\nOld News, (Sage Publications Ltd, 2009) pp.10<\/p>\n

Garrett R.Kelly, \u2018Facebook\u2019s problem is more complicated than fake
\nnews\u2019 (The Conversation, 17 November 2016) <http:\/\/theconversation.com\/facebooks-problem-is-more-complicated-than-fake-news-68886<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Gilad Lotan, \u2018Fake News Is Not the Only Problem\u2019 (www.points.datasocietynet<\/em>,
\n23 November 2016) <https:\/\/points.datasociety.net\/fake-news-is-not-the-problem-f00ec8cdfcb<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Goldsbie J, \u2018Craig Silverman, the man who exposed the fake-news
\nracket in 2016\u2019 (NOW Magazine, 22 December 2016) <https:\/\/nowtoronto.com\/news\/craig-silverman-exposed-the-fake-news-racket\/<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Goodfellow Jonathan, \u2018Only 4% of people can distinguish fake news
\nfrom truth, Channel 4 study finds\u2019 (The Drum<\/em>, 6 February 2017) <http:\/\/www.thedrum.com\/news\/2017\/02\/06\/only-4-people-can-distinguish-fake-news-truth-channel-4-study-finds<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Goodman Emma, \u2018How has
\nmedia policy responded to fake news?\u2019 (LSE Media Policy Project, 7 February
\n2017) <http:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/mediapolicyproject\/2017\/02\/07\/how-has-media-policy-responded-to-fake-news\/<\/a>> accessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Gupta
\nAditi, Lamba Hemank, Kumaraguru
\nPonnurangam, Joshi Anupam, \u2018Faking Sandy: characterizing and identifying fake images on Twitter
\nduring Hurricane Sandy\u2019 [2013] In Proceedings of the 22nd
\nInternational conference on World wide web, WWW \u201913, pp 729-7637<\/p>\n

Heawood Jonathan, \u2018Independent
\nand effective? The post-Leveson framework for press regulation\u2019 [2015] 7(2)
\nJournal of Media Law pp 130-144<\/p>\n

Impress, \u2018IMPRESS
\nSubmission on Fake News (Impress press<\/em>, 10th March 2017) <http:\/\/www.impress.press\/downloads\/file\/research\/impress-fake-news-submission-march-2017.pdf<\/a>> accessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Ipso, \u2018Editors\u2019 Code of Practice\u2019 (The Independent Press Standards Organization,<\/em>
\n<https:\/\/www.ipso.co.uk\/media\/1058\/a4-editors-code-2016.pdf<\/a>>
\naccessed 10 April 2017<\/p>\n

Ipso, \u2018UK Regulated publications\u2019
\n(Ipso.co.uk<\/em>)
\n<https:\/\/www.ipso.co.uk\/about-ipso\/who-ipso-regulates\/?letters=d<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

Jackson Jasper, \u2018Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as \u2018unreliable\u2019 source \u2018
\n(Guardian.com<\/em>,
\n8 Feb 2017) <https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/technology\/2017\/feb\/08\/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

Johnson Adam, \u2018Fairness and
\nAccuracy in reporting \u2018 (Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited \u2018Fake
\nNews\u2019 Blacklist? (Fair.org, 1 December 2016) <http:\/\/fair.org\/home\/why-are-media-outlets-still-citing-discredited-fake-news-blacklist\/<\/a>>
\naccessed 9 April 2017<\/p>\n

KCL Centre for the study of media, communication and power,
\n\u2018Submission to: Consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation
\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office\u2019 (Kcl.ac.uk<\/em>,
\n2016) <https:\/\/www.kcl.ac.uk\/sspp\/policy-institute\/publications\/CMCP-Consultation-Submission-for-DCMS-100117-Final.pdf<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

KCL Centre for the study of
\nmedia, communication and power, \u2018Submission to: Inquiry into Fake News\u2019 (Kcl.ac.uk<\/em>, 16
\nFebruary 2017) <https:\/\/www.kcl.ac.uk\/sspp\/policy-institute\/publications\/CMCP-Consultation-Submission-for-CMS-Select-Committee-Fake-News-Inquiry.pdf<\/a>> accessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Lord Justice Leveson, \u2018An
\nInquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press\u2019 (www.gov.uk<\/em>,
\n2012) <https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/229039\/0779.pdf<\/a>> accessed 16 April 2017<\/p>\n

Mcnair Brian, \u2018 Fake news \u2013 a user\u2019s guide\u2019 (The Conversation, 6
\nMarch 2017) <https:\/\/theconversation.com\/fake-news-a-users-guide-73428<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Mcnair Brian, \u2018Journalism and Democracy: a millennial audit\u2019 [2000]
\n1(2) Journalism Studies pp 207<\/p>\n

Metaxas T. Panagiotis and Eni Mustafaraj, \u2018Manipulation of social media affects perceptions of candidates
\nand compromises decision-making\u2019 [26 Oct 2012] 338 (6106) Social Media and the
\nElections pp 472-473<\/p>\n

National Union of Journalists, \u2018NUJ
\nsubmission to the CMS parliamentary select committee inquiry on fake news\u2019 (www.nuj.org.uk<\/em>,
\nFebruary 2017) <https:\/\/www.nuj.org.uk\/about\/nuj-resources\/nuj-submissions\/<\/a>> accessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Nelson Steven, \u2018Publications Called Russian-Propaganda Distributors
\nConsider Suing Anonymous \u2018Experts\u2019, (US News, 29 November 2016) <https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/articles\/2016-11-29\/publications-called-russian-propaganda-distributors-consider-suing-anonymous-experts?src=usn_tw<\/a>>
\naccessed 9 April 2017<\/p>\n

Newman Nic, H.Dutton William, Blank Grant, Social Media and the
\nNews: Implications for the Press and Society (OUP 2014) pp.139<\/p>\n

NMA, \u2018CMS Select Committee \u2018Fake News\u2019
\nInquiry: NMA Response\u2019 (News.media.uk.org<\/em>, 30 March 2017) <http:\/\/www.newsmediauk.org\/write\/MediaUploads\/Fake
\nNews\/NMA_Submission_to_the_CMS_Select_Committee_%27Fake_News%27_Inquiry.pdf<\/a>> accessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

NMA, \u2018CMS Select Committee \u2018Fake News\u2019
\nInquiry: NMA Response\u2019 (Newsmediaukorg<\/em>, 30 March) <http:\/\/www.newsmediauk.org\/write\/MediaUploads\/Fake
\nNews\/NMA_Submission_to_the_CMS_Select_Committee_%27Fake_News%27_Inquiry.pdf<\/a>> accessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Ofcom, \u2018Review of Ofcom list of
\nmajor political parties for elections\u2019 (Ofcom.org.uk<\/em>, 16 March 2015) <https:\/\/www.ofcom.org.uk\/__data\/assets\/pdf_file\/0016\/72142\/major_parties_statement.pdf<\/a>>
\naccessed 12 April 2017<\/p>\n

PA, \u2018Can the law do anything to
\nstop fake news?\u2019 (Aol.co.uk<\/em>,
\n12 Dec 2016) <http:\/\/www.aol.co.uk\/news\/2016\/12\/12\/can-the-law-do-anything-to-stop-fake-news\/<\/a>>accessed
\n11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Public relations and communications
\nassociation (PRCA), \u2018PRCA response to the CMS Committee\u2019s \u2018Fake News\u2019 Inquiry \u2018
\n(Prca.org.uk<\/em>,
\n6 March 2017) <https:\/\/www.prca.org.uk\/sites\/default\/files\/PRCA%20Response%20to%20Fake%20News%20Inquiry.pdf<\/a>> accessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Robbins Martin, \u2018Fake news and fact-checking: Trump is demonstrating
\nhow to outsmart an AI\u2019 (Theguardiancom<\/em>, 31 January 2017) <https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2017\/jan\/31\/fake-news-and-fact-checking-trump-is-demonstrating-how-to-outsmart-an-ai-artificial-intelligence<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

Sievers Bruce and
\nSchneider Patrice, \u2018The Civic Media Crisis and What Philanthropy Can Do (SSIR)\u2019
\n(Stanford Social Innovation Review 8 March 2017) <https:\/\/ssir.org\/articles\/entry\/the_civic_media_crisis_and_what_philanthropy_can_do<\/a>>
\naccessed 8 April 2017<\/p>\n

Singer-Vine, \u2018Most Americans Who See Fake News Believe It\u2019 (Buzz
\nFeed News, 7th December 2016) <https:\/\/www.buzzfeed.com\/craigsilverman\/fake-news-survey?utm_term=.ywmJ84DQPD<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

Stromer-galley Jeremy, \u2018Three ways Facebook could reduce fake news
\nwithout resorting to censorship\u2019 (The Conversation, 2 December 2016) <https:\/\/theconversation.com\/three-ways-facebook-could-reduce-fake-news-without-resorting-to-censorship-69033<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

Tambini Damian, Fake News: Public Policy Responses, LSE
\nMedia Policy Project Series, (2017) pp13-15<\/p>\n

The Trust Project Org, (thetrustproject.org<\/em>,
\n2016) <http:\/\/thetrustproject.org\/><\/a>accessed
\n13 April 2017<\/p>\n

Thompson Clive, \u2018Why Facebook and Twitter have a civic duty to
\nprotect us from fake news\u2019 (WIRED UK, 24 February 2017) <http:\/\/www.wired.co.uk\/article\/social-medium-message<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

UK Parliament, \u2018Select Committee on Communications Corrected oral
\nevidence: Children and the Internet\u2019 (Dataparliamentuk<\/em>, 22 November 2016)
\n<http:\/\/data.parliament.uk\/writtenevidence\/committeeevidence.svc\/evidencedocument\/communications-
\ncommittee\/children-and-the-internet\/oral\/43755.pdf<\/a>> accessed 11
\nApril 2017<\/p>\n

UK Parliament, \u2018Social Media and Access to Information\u2019 (UK Parliament<\/em>,
\nJan 2017) <http:\/\/www.parliament.uk\/mps-lords-and-offices\/offices\/bicameral\/post\/work-programme\/physical-sciences\/social-media-information-access\/<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

Wahl-Jorgensen Karin, Hintz
\nArne, Dencik Lina, Bennett Lucy, \u2018Journalism,
\ncitizenship and surveillance\u2019 [2017] 5(3) Digital Journalism pp 256-261<\/p>\n

Wardle Claire, \u2018Fake news It\u2019s complicated\u2019, (First Draft News, 16
\nFebruary 2017) <https:\/\/firstdraftnews.com\/fake-news-complicated\/<\/a>>
\naccessed 9 April 2017<\/p>\n

Wise Michael, \u2018News Plurality and Digital Intermediaries \u2013 European
\nJournalism Observatory- EJO\u2019 (European Journalism Observatory \u2013 EJO, 28 August
\n2012) <http:\/\/en.ejo.ch\/media-politics\/news-plurality-and-digital-intermediaries<\/a>>
\naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

Zuckerberg Mark, \u2018Building Global Community\u2019 (Facebook.com<\/em>,
\n16 February 2017) <https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/notes\/mark-zuckerberg\/building-global-community\/10154544292806634<\/a>>
\naccessed 11 April 2017<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Wahl-Jorgensen
\net al, \u2018Journalism, citizenship and surveillance\u2019<\/em>
\n[2017] 5(3) Digital Journalism pp.256-261<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Brian Mcnair, \u2018 Fake news \u2013 a user\u2019s guide\u2019 (The-Conversation, <\/em>6 March 2017) <https:\/\/theconversation.com\/fake-news-a-users-guide-73428<\/a>>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> UK Parliament, \u2018Social Media and Access to
\nInformation\u2019 (UK-Parliament, <\/em>Jan 2017) <http:\/\/www.parliament.uk\/mps-lords-and-offices\/offices\/bicameral\/post\/work-programme\/physical-sciences\/social-media-information-access\/<\/a>>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Siervers and Schneider, \u2018The Civic
\nMedia Crisis and What Philanthropy Can Do\u2019 (Stanford
\nSocial Innovation Review, <\/em>8 March 2017) <https:\/\/ssir.org\/articles\/entry\/the_civic_media_crisis_and_what_philanthropy_can_do<\/a>>accessed
\n8\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Emma
\nGoodman, \u2018How has media policy responded to fake news?\u2019 (LSE-Media-Policy-Project, <\/em>7 February 2017), <http:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk\/mediapolicyproject\/2017\/02\/07\/how-has-media-policy-responded-to-fake-news<\/a>\/>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Claire Wardle, \u2018Fake news It\u2019s complicated\u2019, (First Draft News,<\/em> 16 February 2017),
\n<https:\/\/firstdraftnews.com\/fake-news-complicated<\/a>\/>accessed
\n9\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Ibid <\/em><\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Michael Wise, \u2018News Plurality and Digital
\nIntermediaries-EJO\u2019 (European Journalism
\nObservatory-EJO, <\/em>28 August 2012), <http:\/\/en.ejo.ch\/media-politics\/news-plurality-and-digital-intermediarie<\/a>s>accessed
\n13\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Jessica
\nGoodfellow, \u2018Only 4% of people can distinguish fake news from truth, Channel 4
\nstudy finds\u2019 (The Drum, <\/em>6 February 2017), <http:\/\/www.thedrum.com\/news\/2017\/02\/06\/only-4-people-can-distinguish-fake-news-truth-channel-4-study-finds<\/a>>accessed online 11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Impress,
\n\u2018IMPRESS Submission on Fake News Page \u2018, (Impress press, <\/em>10th March
\n2017) <http:\/\/www.impress.press\/downloads\/file\/research\/impress-fake-news-submission-march-2017.pdf<\/a>>
\naccessed 11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Ibid<\/em><\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Ceron et al, \u2018Every tweet counts? How sentiment
\nanalysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens\u2019 political
\npreferences with an application to Italy and France\u2019 [4 April 2013] 16(2) New Media & Society<\/em>, pp.340 \u2013 358<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Lizzie Dearden, \u2018Brexit research suggests 12 million
\nLeave voters regret their choice in reversal that could change result\u2019 (The
\nIndependent, <\/em>1 July 2016) <http:\/\/www.independent.co.uk\/news\/uk\/politics\/brexit-news-second-eu-referendum-leave-voters-regret-bregret-choice-in-millions-a7113336.html<\/a>>
\naccessed 13\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Ibid<\/em><\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Clive Thompson, \u2018Why Facebook and Twitter have a
\ncivic duty to protect us from fake news\u2019, (WIRED
\nUK, <\/em>24 February 2017), <http:\/\/www.wired.co.uk\/article\/social-medium-message<\/a>>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Metaxas et al, \u2018Manipulation
\nof social media affects perceptions of candidates and compromises
\ndecision-making<\/em>\u2018 [26 Oct 2012] 338(6106) Social Media and the Elections
\npp.472-473<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Ibid<\/em><\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Gupta et
\nal, \u2018Faking Sandy: characterizing and
\nidentifying fake images on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy\u2019 <\/em>[2013] In Proceedings of the 22nd International
\nconference on WWW \u201913, pp.729-7637<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Newman et al, Social Media and the News:
\nImplications for the Press and Society<\/em>, (OUP, <\/em>2014), pp.139<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Ipso, \u2018Editors\u2019 Code of Practice\u2019, (The
\nIndependent Press Standards Organization), <\/em><https:\/\/www.ipso.co.uk\/media\/1058\/a4-editors-code-2016.pdf<\/a>>accessed
\n10\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> UK Parliament, \u2018Select Committee on
\nCommunications Corrected oral evidence: Children and the Internet\u2019 (Data.parliament.uk,
\n<\/em>22 November 2016), <http:\/\/data.parliament.uk\/writtenevidence\/committeeevidence.svc\/evidencedocument\/communications-%20committee\/children-and-the-internet\/oral\/43755.pdf<\/a>>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> NMA, \u2018CMS Select Committee \u2018Fake News\u2019
\nInquiry: NMA Response\u2019 (News.media.uk.org, <\/em>30 March 2017), <http:\/\/www.newsmediauk.org\/write\/MediaUploads\/Fake%20News\/NMA_Submission_to_the_CMS_Select_Committee_%27Fake_News%27_Inquiry.pdf<\/a>>accessed 11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> R.Kelly Garrett, \u2018Facebook\u2019s problem is more
\ncomplicated than fake news\u2019 (The
\nConversation, <\/em>17 November 2016), <http:\/\/theconversation.com\/facebooks-problem-is-more-complicated-than-fake-news-68886<\/a>>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Ibid<\/em><\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> BBC, \u2018Fake news: How can African media deal with the
\nproblem?\u2019 (BBC News, <\/em>16 February 2017), <http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/world-africa-38883347<\/a>>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Brian Mcnair, \u2018Journalism
\nand Democracy: a millennial audit\u2019<\/em> [2000] 1(2) Journalism Studies pp.207<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Communications
\nAct 2003, Section 319(2)(d) and (h)\u2028<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Ofcom, \u2018Review of Ofcom list of major political
\nparties for elections\u2019 (Ofcom.org.uk, <\/em>16 March 2015), <https:\/\/www.ofcom.org.uk\/__data\/assets\/pdf_file\/0016\/72142\/major_parties_statement.pdf<\/a>>accessed
\n12\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> \u00a0Jonathan Goldsbie, \u2018Craig
\nSilverman, the man who exposed the fake-news racket in 2016\u2019 (NOW-Magazine, <\/em>22 December 2016) <https:\/\/nowtoronto.com\/news\/craig-silverman-exposed-the-fake-news-racket\/<\/a>>
\naccessed 11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a>\u00a0 Andrew Byrne,
\n\u2018Macedonia\u2019s fake news industry sets sights on Europe\u2019 (www.ft.com, <\/em>16 December 2016), <https:\/\/www.ft.com\/content\/333fe6bc-c1ea-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a<\/a>>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> Steven Nelson, \u2018Publications Called Russian-Propaganda
\nDistributors Consider Suing Anonymous \u2018Experts\u2019, (US-News, <\/em>29 November 2016), <https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/articles\/2016-11-29\/publications-called-russian-propaganda-distributors-consider-suing-anonymous-experts?src=usn_tw<\/a>>accessed
\n9\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a>Adam Johnson, \u2018Why are media outlets still citing
\ndiscredited Fake News Blacklist?\u2019, (FAIR,
\n<\/em>1 December 2016) <http:\/\/fair.org\/home\/why-are-media-outlets-still-citing-discredited-fake-news-blacklist\/<\/a>accessed
\n9\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Lotan Gilad, \u2018Fake News Is Not the Only Problem\u2019 (www.points.datasocietynet<\/em>, 23 November
\n2016), <https:\/\/points.datasociety.net\/fake-news-is-not-the-problem-f00ec8cdfcb<\/a>>accessed
\n11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a>Jeremy Singer-Vine, \u2018Most Americans Who See Fake News
\nBelieve It\u2019, (BuzzFeed,<\/em>7th December
\n2016), <https:\/\/www.buzzfeed.com\/craigsilverman\/fake-news-survey?utm_term=.ywmJ84DQPD<\/a>>accessed
\n13\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> NMA, \u2018CMS Select Committee \u2018Fake News\u2019
\nInquiry: NMA Response\u2019 (Newsmediauk.org, <\/em>30 March 2017), <http:\/\/www.newsmediauk.org\/write\/MediaUploads\/Fake%20News\/NMA_Submission_to_the_CMS_Select_Committee_%27Fake_News%27_Inquiry.pdf<\/a>>accessed 11\/April\/2017<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> Defamation Act 2013<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Copyright, Designs and Patents Act\u00a01988<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Data Protection
\nAct 1998<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The dissemination of fake news by online is a threat to democracy. Should online platforms therefore be subject to regulatory control? Professional journalism plays an important role in our democratic societies by acting as a public watchdog over the concentrations of power, ensuring the accountability of these institutions, and informing us of important occurrences.[1] However, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7418,7482,5798],"tags":[7419,3319,5337,5587,5586,249],"class_list":["post-37503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-affordable-essay-writing-service","category-essay-examples-media","category-media","tag-academic-paper","tag-assignment-help","tag-dissertation-writing","tag-essay-writing","tag-online-tutoring","tag-write-my-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37503","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}