Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Fake news is an attribute of today’s media world. Moreover, it has become a kind of media industry. Fake information may be used for different purposes. Firstly, the aim may be to spoil the opinion about political opponents. Spreading fake information is the most effective way to do it as it makes the target of the badgering look pathetic in the minds of the public. Secondly, the reason for creating fake news may be to attract public attention to some subject.
The shocking news is always more attractive and discussed than an ordinary one. Finally, this method may be directed at forming in the masses a certain opinion on policies, economy, and many other spheres. For example, when there is an urge to justify the unpopular measures of a country’s government, fake news may serve as sufficient informational support. Thus, false information generally serves as an instrument of forming opinions. The aim of this work is to analyze one piece of fake news and prove that this method of dirty journalism may be used to support a widely shared stereotype.
The piece of news under consideration will be that of President Donald Trump’s removing the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. This event was reported in January 2017 by the Time correspondent Zeke Miller (Gibbs). The information was placed on Time’s official website and raised a huge clamor both on the news and social network services where it was discussed by the public.
Before analyzing the fake information itself, it is necessary to view the context in which it was generated and spread. Firstly, Trump is a political figure that, although he was elected President, meets strong opposition in the American society due to his right-wing views and policies and sometimes to his extravagant behavior. That is why any of his actions and words are widely discussed. Secondly, Martin Luther King is a significant figure for the United States and the American citizens.
He was one of the leading activists of the 1960s civil rights movement and was murdered for his political activity. It is important that his views and beliefs were partly left-wing. On the other, he became one of the USA’s national symbols. Thirdly, according to McNair, the election of Trump caused a boom of fake news around the world (1). It means that Miller did not invent anything new: he simply followed the trend.
One of the main questions under consideration concerns what the purpose of creating the false item was. One should bear in mind that Time is a respectable news and analytics source that is trusted by millions of people not only in the English-speaking countries but all around the globe. After the fake appeared on the website, Trump published an angry tweet against Miller, and there was an official refutation from the President’s administration.
However, the reputation of the news portal was damaged. According to Lăzăroiu, “the ethic of impartiality is a benchmark of good journalism” (114). This principle is evident not only to journalists but to almost anyone, even those who are far from this profession. Miller violated it and did harm to the news source that he was working for. It is hard to identify his motivation for sure, but there may be various reasons for him to write false information about Trump.
The first reason may be because Miller is an irreconcilable opponent to Trump, and his initial aim was to blacken the politician’s reputation. Having found nothing better, the journalist decided to invent the information about the King bust being removed from the Oval Office. However, it is more likely that the correspondent, consciously or unconsciously, wanted to contribute to Trump’s negative image of a die-hard right-wing politician. Lăzăroiu states that news is targeted at giving its readers or watchers some new information (114). Thus, to attract his audience’s attention, Miller invented a detail that corresponded to the stereotype about Trump.
In this way, the journalist did not only follow the stereotype but also added a new detail to it. Despite his later excuses, many people associate Trump with those who struggle against human and civil rights.
This story spread quickly and via multiple channels. Firstly and naturally, Miller’s report was caught up by various news agencies, who interpreted the fake in the key that the removal of the King bust is characteristic of Trump and his political views. Moreover, those who presented this fake to the audience might have implied that the removal was a symbol of the beginning of the right-wing era in the state policy of the US.
This could not but enforce the Trump stereotype. Gibbs states that the White House reacted by placing a refutation on its official website. No matter what purposes the administration pursued, they sharpened the public attention to the topic. Thus, unintentionally, the White House took part in spreading the fake. To add, social networks also contributed to the process of discussing a piece of news. Thus, the issue became even more resonant as it involved millions of social-media users.
It is necessary to consider the rhetoric that Miller uses. According to Gibbs, the journalist did not say directly that the King bust was taken away: he hinted at it by claiming that he had not seen the bust. This kind of rhetoric is typical of fake news and rather sophisticated. On the one hand, Miller allegedly does not focus on the fake circumstance. On the contrary, he mentions it as a minor detail. However, the fake attracts the audience because the image of Martin Luther King as a fighter for justice is emotionally strong in the mass consciousness. Having learned that Trump removed King’s bust from the Oval Office, the average reader feels anger and disgust towards the politician, and this is the purpose of using exactly this rhetoric that supports and enriches the stereotypical image of the President.
The strategy that makes the story persuasive is that the reporter presents himself as a detached observer by intentionally distancing himself from making judgments and giving evaluations. The fake information was included in an ordinary political report that only enumerates events, political decisions, etc. In most cases, such pieces of information are viewed by most readers as boring. However, when provocative details are included, the situation changes to the opposite. In the case under consideration, the indifferent matter-of-fact tone makes the story persuasive: there is no obvious reason why the reader might doubt what the author says. To add, it is important to notice that Miller demonstrates the image of Trump exactly according to the wide-spread stereotype.
As this fake was a small piece in an article, it did not include much detail. However, one sentence is quite important. It goes like “more decorating details: apart from the return of the Churchill bust, the MLK bust was no longer on display” (Gibbs). It is significant because the remark is small but convincing. The reader may think that the author himself did not pay much attention to the detail described and even included it in his report unintentionally. It is presented casually as if it was one of the many “decorating details” (Gibbs). The average reader may suppose that it is usual for Trump to violate human rights and practice chauvinism or other kinds of discrimination.
The story was proved to be fake by Trump himself on his Twitter. Then, the White House official representatives put a refutation on the website (Gibbs). On the one hand, this action may be considered right: the President was calumniated, and the officials’ duty was to prove Miller’s report to be fake. It corresponds to Lăzăroiu’s principle of “factual accuracy” (116). However, others may say that it was a wrong move on the part of the administration. As it has already been mentioned, the White House drew even more attention to the fake and roused much more discussion than there had been before. It is possible that Trump’s refutation on Twitter was convincing enough. After the official statement appeared, Time published their excuses (Gibbs). Miller himself begged a pardon on Twitter.
However, the journalist achieved his initial goal as millions of people were deceived. On Time’s website, there is an option of reposting any piece of news on Twitter and Facebook. As the site is visited by millions of users, it is obvious that the fake was repeatedly reposted. The refutation can never erase all the consequences of such a resonant piece of news. It is natural to suppose that Washington’s official statement was never read by all of those who had read about the removal of the bust. As a result, Miller significantly spoiled the image of Trump as a politician.
It is important to add that the journalist’s report was accompanied by a video that shows Trump making an official speech in the White House. Visualization is extremely important for creating a stereotype. When the reader who has seen the false piece of news sees Trump’s impressive face and hears his voice, it is possible that further on, the picture of the politician in the reader’s mind will associate with the removal of the King bust and die-hard right-wing policies.
The tone of the mental image will be negative. Such dishonest journalist methods are characteristic of the modern fake-generating. This proves Lăzăroiu’s thesis that “market-driven journalism is grounded on commercial priority rather than professional norms like consequence neutrality, or ethical considerations, such as fairness” (116). The example demonstrates that stereotypes (fake ones included) draw more of the audience’s attention than honest pieces of news.
To conclude, the instance under discussion shows that fake news is an effective instrument for supporting, developing, enforcing, and imposing stereotypes. Firstly, a fake story tends to contain some shocking piece that catches on the reader’s attention and, to a certain degree, insults feelings or beliefs. Secondly, the appropriate rhetoric should be applied to make the story convincing. If the author seems unemotional, it is easier to believe him as the reader sees no motivation for lying.
It is not difficult to impose a stereotype if one uses the matter-of-fact presentation. Thirdly, the Internet makes fake news spread at an enormous pace, and it is hardly possible to eliminate the consequences as any refutations may be uninteresting to the public. Moreover, exposures may be of no help at all as they make the topic more burning and the stereotype stronger. Finally, visual details enforce the stereotype on the psychological level and make a person subconsciously believe in the fake piece of information.
Works Cited
Gibbs, Nancy. “A Note to Our Readers.” Time. 2017. Web.
Lăzăroiu, George. “Post-Truth and the Journalist’s Ethos.” Post-Truth, Fake News: Viral Modernity & Higher Education, edited by Michael A. Peters, Sharon Rider, Mats Hyvönen, and Tina Besley, Springer, 2018, pp. 113-120.
McNair, Brian. Fake News: Falsehood, Fabrication and Fantasy in Journalism. Routledge, 2017.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.