Fake news or satire?

(Original picture of Trump by Michael Vadon)

​

By Jordan Barrera

​

Steve Boyd, owner of The Lapine, a satirical online news publication, remembers a time when satirists were praised whenever readers confused their work as fact. He says writers used to get a laugh out of it. But now, if a reader is duped, writers are criticized.  

“Five years ago, before fake news, people recognized humour in satire and nobody accused you of doing something wrong,” Boyd says. “Now, we get accused of doing something wrong if somebody believes what we write.”

As a result, he says many satire sites have adjusted their structure from “intelligent” or “not over-the-top” pieces to “loud” satire, to ensure readers know the story isn’t true. Loud satire is a tendency to make ridiculous claims and create absurd situations. Intelligent satire is a more traditional and subtle approach. It requires research, knowledge and witty commentary.

Boyd doesn’t publish loud satire on The Lapine. Instead, he produces what he calls “particles,” a play on “part” and “articles,” since the work he publishes is around 90 per cent true.

“I do my research and most reputable satirists do,” he says.   

Jane Lytvynenko is a reporter at BuzzFeed who specializes in fake news and how readers can protect themselves against it. She makes quizzes that show an article, and challenges readers to determine if the work is real or fake news. One of her quizzes includes an article claiming to be satire, written by a writer under the name “Busta Troll.”

Lytvynenko believes it is up to massive online companies, such as Facebook and Google, to fight misinformation on social media.

“I don’t think that this problem is going away, but I do think a lot of it lies in the hands of internet giants who are, whether they mean to or not, enabling this kind of activity,” she says.

She believes there should be an online tool for social media sites that helps users fact-check information.

Lytvynenko says satire is tricky, because it can be hard to define and is not easy to fact-check. She thinks posters should ask introspective questions when sharing satire on social media.

“I do think that things have shifted from when The Onion was initially popularized. If people are falling for their satire consistently and it’s causing harm, then maybe they do need to re-examine their social strategy,” she says.

Gavin Adamson is a program director and professor at the Ryerson School of Journalism (RSJ) who specializes in digital journalism and social media. He says though technology has changed communication, those who share false information are still at fault.

“There’s no more point in making judgements about people’s behaviour online and in social media, in some ways, than there is getting judgmental about people sharing B.S. stories at the water cooler,” he says.

He says when people follow different social media accounts, it can be easy to confuse where information comes from. It can get misinterpreted even when it’s properly labeled.

Ryerson University’s independent student newspaper, The Eyeopener, has a “Fun and Satire” section. Adamson says though this section is properly labeled, readers have misinterpreted its tone.

Adamson says mood plays a role in a readers's perception of content. Certain moods may allow for misunderstandings to occur.  

“It depends what kind of reason you’re online for. If you’re looking particularly for news, you’re likely not going to make a mistake,” he says.

In the digital age, Adamson attributes responsibility to the reader or sharer. He urges readers to question and research a post before they share. He says sharers should also admit to mistakes after sharing fictitious stories.

“Ultimately, our laws and the laws in the U.S. and most every Western democracy gives a whole lot of leeway to the media, whether it’s the real news media or funny or satirical news media to publish anything,” Adamson says. “That’s what our society has deemed necessary to maintain a healthy democracy.”

He says a key feature of online sharing is its quantifiable nature. Before the digital age, it was not possible to see how many people each bit of information reached. Now, the amount of views can be automatically published under a post.  

With the internet, misinformation reaches wider audiences than ever. When shared, damage can be difficult to reverse.