09 March 2017
Fake News
Or is it?
by Neil Tidmarsh
Fake news alert! Yes, this week, we’re indulging in fake news. Well, if everyone else is at it, why should Shaw Sheet be any different? “Shame on you, Shaw Sheet!”, I hear you cry, but at least you can’t say that you haven’t been warned.
So, only fake stories here this week. Or is that statement itself a fake? Just to make it interesting, try and work out which (if not all) of the stories below are fake, and which (if any) are the gospel truth. (Did Pontius Pilate really say “What is truth?”, and if so, why did only one of the four gospels report it? Suspicious… But mention of the Roman governor of Judea brings us to the first story, and it’s a personal one…)
Last week I bought a Roman coin, 1,660 years old. Or did I? There it was, in a nameless shop in a nameless town (that’s one of the things about fake news – the sources are always somewhat mysterious, aren’t they?), labelled “Magnentius 350 – 353AD” and priced twelve quid. I asked to have a look at it – and it felt and looked all wrong from the moment I picked it up. I handed it back and left the shop with twelve quid unspent.
But I thought about it. Was it really a fake? I did want a coin of Magnentius, for reasons I won’t go into here, and it was something of a coincidence that I’d found one – the shop wasn’t really a coin shop, it just had a handful of coins on display. Was it simply the coincidence which had made me suspicious? Perhaps it wasn’t a fake, after all. I wanted to believe it was genuine. And only twelve quid – no more than the price of a cinema ticket – worth a punt, surely? And even if it was a fake, wouldn’t that make it an interesting artefact in itself – what stories of skulduggery, of criminal ingenuity, would it have to tell if only it could speak? I went back to the shop half an hour later and handed over my twelve pounds.
And here it is. I have a suspicion it was cast or moulded like a modern coin, and not hammered like an ancient one. And there’s something lifeless about the wear on the surfaces and the damage to the edges. And a search on the internet will tell you that there are plenty of Magnentius fakes around. But I’m no expert, so perhaps, after all…
Mention of internet searches brings us to our second story; Google’s “featured snippets” tool cast an interesting light on current affairs last week by sharing the news with us that our prime minister Theresa May is in fact a giant lizard in disguise, that President Obama had been planning a coup d’état, and that four former US presidents were Ku Klux Klan members.
Third story. On January 10, during a Senate hearing to confirm his nomination as attorney general, Jeff Sessions was asked if anyone in the Trump campaign had communicated with the Russian government. “I’m not aware of any of those activities” he said. “I did not have any communications with the Russians.”
Fourth story. Last week, an FBI counterintelligence investigation reported that Jeff Sessions had indeed communicated with the Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak twice before the elections, speaking to him in July and meeting with him in September. Following this report, Jeff Sessions announced that he would be stepping down from any inquiry into alleged links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, or into alleged Russian interference in the election, inquiries in which he, as the attorney general, would otherwise be heavily involved.
Fifth story. President Trump denied stories that his campaign had any communications or connections with the Russian authorities. Fake news! The true story, he said, is that President Obama organised an illegal surveillance of him during the campaign, authorising a phone-tap at Trump Tower.
Sixth story. A spokesman for Mr Obama called the phone-tapping allegation “simply false”. James Clapper, ex-director of national intelligence, denied the allegation on American TV. James Comey, the FBI director, also said the allegation was false (according to the New York Times).
Seventh story. In the Chinese village of Jiangbei, Jiangsu province, all married couples – about 160 of them – have suddenly filed for divorce. But they’re continuing to live together. Fake divorces! What’s that about? Well, the village is to be demolished to make way for a high-tech industrial park, and divorced couples get more compensation than married couples; it’s reported that the state will give each married couple a big house elsewhere, but if they divorce, one partner also gets a smaller house plus £15,500.
So, which of these stories are fake, and which are genuine?
They’re all genuine, of course. None of them is fake.
What, you gasp? How can Jeff Session’s claims and the FBI’s claims both be genuine? One of them must be fake. And how can President Trump’s allegation of phone-tapping and the various denials of it both be genuine? Again, one of them must be fake. And is Theresa May really a giant lizard behind those leopard prints, kitten heels and leather trousers? And did President Obama really plan a coup d’état? And are all Jaingbei’s 160 couples really happily married?
Well, the stories are true in that they are reporting allegations which have really been made – the real questions here are: (a) how could anybody believe (and why should anyone make or publish) claims or allegations or stories which are pretty obviously fake? And (b) how can we tell whether claims or allegations are true or false anyway, particularly when they’re contradicted by other claims or allegations?
As for the second question, the truth often emerges from two opposing claims – the judge and the jury listen to both the defence and the prosecution, any Congressional investigation will examine sources and evidence from all sides. I could confront that shop with my suspicions, they could question their supplier, we could consult experts, the coin could be analysed scientifically. Ideally, a newspaper or publisher will examine sources and evidence to establish the truth as far as they can before publishing. The problem with much of today’s on-line media is that such editorial procedures no longer seem to be in place; or, if they are, they are automated like the algorithms which Google’s “featured snippets” uses to find content to answer the questions its users put to it. But the truth does exist, it is out there, there is such a thing as objective fact. A coin is either genuine or a copy. Either Jeff Sessions met with Russians or he didn’t. Either that phone-tap took place or it didn’t. It’s a just a matter of sources, evidence, proof and expert witnesses.
As for the first question, well, false claims will be made as long as anyone is set to profit by them, and will be believed as long as anyone really wants them to be true, even if physical evidence and rational thought suggest otherwise. That coin – would I have bought it if I hadn’t really wanted to believe that it wasn’t a fake? And who knows, it might actually be genuine…
Perhaps you’re checking all the above stories on-line even now, searching for sources and evidence. And perhaps you won’t believe anything I tell you ever again.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
