Fake news best countered by journalists, not laws
I read with interest the report “Fake news: ‘No need for new laws, just refine current ones’” (June 28).
Be it amending current laws or creating new ones to help eradicate fake news, we must first ask: Who decides what is fake?
According to law professor Eugene Tan, who spoke at a recent forum on this matter, even “governments themselves, for a variety of reasons ... generate fake news”.
This is compounded by the fact that those in positions of power command a louder voice than the average citizen.
A case in point is American President Donald Trump, who declared allegations of his Russian connections to be fake and threatened the media.
As it turns out, the case is now under investigation, but it demonstrates that those in power have the resources and the attention of the media to silence their critics through a declaration of “fake news”.
Regulations that seek to eradicate fake news might have the opposite effect. The common man seeking justice may not use such laws for fear of high legal costs, while the rich may think nothing of bending them to their purpose.
The powerful wield great influence and thus have the ability to silence and deceive. Any law must seek primarily to protect the weak, not lend a hand to those who seek to abuse it, no matter how remote the possibility.
If anything, we can learn from the Trump case that the arbiter to dispel fake news is an empowered media that probes relentlessly or keeps an issue front and centre.
This would cultivate a more informed audience and require accountability from those who seek to perpetrate falsehoods.
Journalists who are familiar with a beat or the whims of a newsmaker would sniff out fabrications. But such journalists must be cultivated by the industry and strengthened by laws that encourage good investigative journalism standards.
In essence, better media, and not rigid, punitive laws, is the best counter to fake news, regardless of the source.
