Fake news: a fake news?

Fake news has always existed. Everyone knows the meaning of the words «false» and «news,» so it’s perfectly clear what “fake news” is. And no doubt everyone will agree with me that it’s possible to report a piece of news believing it to be true, when in fact it is false. If we all told the truth all the time, if we were omniscient, everyone would know it.

Whether a piece of information someone provides is true or false is therefore independent of that person's intentions. For a long time, people sincerely believed that the Earth was flat: this is a classic example of lack of knowledge. One can also say something without bothering to ask whether it is true or not; in that case, it is a matter of disregard for the truth. In a similar but slightly different situation, we can also not have time to verify a piece of information—for example, in an emergency situation where one takes the risk of sharing information even though one isn’t entirely sure of it—say, only 51%—but where it’s better to say something than to say nothing at all.

Of course, there is the case of lying: By definition, it is the deliberate act of spreading a story that one knows to be false. The reasons for such an act—as old as a certain well-known profession—can vary: the desire to deceive or manipulate, of course, but also cowardice, the fear of punishment… or even simple mischief, like a child’s game in which the child has no reason to do it but does it anyway for fun—even if it means confessing to the prank right afterward. In all these situations, one thing remains constant: the fact that the liar knows the information is false has nothing to do with the fact that the information is actually false… The reason is simple: one can tell a big lie without even realizing it (see above).

The case of the bullshit, an Anglo-Saxon concept that we translate into French as «foutaises,» is more specific. We’re dealing here with people who ramble on endlessly, capable of asserting one thing and its exact opposite, since their only concern is to speak—not whether what they say is true or false. The profile of the to spout nonsense was very well described by the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt in the book On Bullshit (2005), translated into French by Didier Sénécal under the title The Art of Talking Bullshit. Unlike a liar, who needs to know the truth in order to hide it from the person they’re talking to, the spouter of nonsense doesn’t need to know it. In fact, they are indifferent to the truth. Of course, it’s hard to say for sure that one person is a bullshitter and another a liar, and so on. Anyone can switch from one to the other—including Donald Trump.

What is surprising and suspicious is that such different realities could have been grouped together under a single—barbaric—concept. The expression of fake news, whether used as is in French or under the AOC label of «fake news,» encompasses different attitudes toward the truth. It is therefore irrelevant.

The very idea of a unique phenomenon of fake news is therefore a fake news. It carries the risk of blurring the lines—an early sign of totalitarianism. It also carries the risk of singling out the “good guys” (the police officers from the fake news) and the bad ones (the merchants of fake news); a second sign of totalitarianism. There is also the risk of launching a witch hunt against fake news, which leaves the door open for the state to act as the guardian of truth; a third sign of totalitarianism. Finally, there is the risk of leading people to believe that this is a new phenomenon that our era must address—the famous “clean slate” approach, which we see in the toppling of statues; a fourth sign of totalitarianism.

Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com

Drawing: © Nathanaël Schmid for Le Regard Libre

You've just read an open-access editorial. Debates, analysis, cultural news: subscribe to support us and get access to all our content!

The RTS «Forum» debate in which Jonas Follonier participated on May 29, 2020: