In
short: because they are rapidly losing the propaganda monopoly
by
system failure
No
matter how hard I tried, I couldn't find a source to inform me about
the exact origin (who and when) of the term 'fake news'. Generally,
the term became mainstream during the last years, and especially
after some shocking events for the Western neoliberal establishment,
like Trump's presidency and Brexit.
Very
briefly, it appears that the term was suspiciously invented by the
neoliberal apparatus to discredit people who supported such events,
through social media and other Internet platforms completely
independent from the mainstream media control. Of course, one can
easily discredit this perception as 'conspiracy theory' or even 'fake
news', as well.
While
it's true that there has been a lot of hyperbole, misinformation and
hard propaganda circulated inside the cyberspace, it seems that the
'fake news' term was expanded somehow to include even opinions and
positions outside the dominant neoliberal orthodoxy expressed by the
political center in the West.
What's
perhaps most interesting in the whole story, is that the term 'fake
news' eventually backfired against the establishment, as it was
immediately adopted by the political ‘extremes’ outside the
neoliberal center, to include the misinformation and the smearing
campaigns by the mainstream media against those who didn't comply
with the neoliberal narratives. Mainstream media propaganda is what
brought us numerous wars and plenty of disaster in previous decades,
after all.
Now, a
relatively
new technology with its origins in the beginning
of the previous decade, seems that it spreads a sort of panic among
the mainstream media, often described as 'information apocalypse'.
As
described by Guardian
recently:
|
What
is new is the democratisation of advanced IT, the fact that anyone
with a computer can now engage in the weaponisation of
information. 2016 was the year we woke up to the power of fake
news, with internet conspiracy theories and lies used to bolster
the case for both Brexit and Donald Trump. We may, however, look
back on it as a kind of phoney war, when photoshopping and video
manipulation were still easily detectable. That window is closing
fast. A program developed at Stanford University allows users to
convincingly put words into politicians’ mouths. Celebrities can
be inserted into porn videos. Quite soon it will be all but
impossible for ordinary people to tell what’s real and what’s
not.
What
will the effects of this be? When a public figure claims the
racist or sexist audio of them is simply fake, will we believe
them? How will political campaigns work when millions of voters
have the power to engage in dirty tricks? What about health
messages on the dangers of diesel or the safety of vaccines? Will
vested interests or conspiracy theorists attempt to manipulate
them? Unable to trust what they see or hear, will people retreat
into lives of non-engagement, ceding the public sphere to the
already powerful or the unscrupulous?
The
potential for an “information apocalypse” is beginning to be
taken seriously. The problem is we have no idea what a world in
which all words and images are suspect will look like, so it’s
hard to come up with solutions. Perhaps not very much will change
– perhaps we will develop a sixth sense for bullshit and
propaganda, in the same way that it has become easy to distinguish
sales calls from genuine inquiries, and scam emails with fake bank
logos from the real thing. But there’s no guarantee we’ll be
able to defend ourselves from the onslaught, and society could
start to change in unpredictable ways as a result.
|
The
perspective described here is indeed frightening. Yet, what's really
impressive in this article and in other similar articles by the big
media on the Internet, is that there is a type of information
elitism, implying that there is a media priesthood, which has the
copyright of Truth. You can tell that by the fact that the article
completely ignores the possibility that this technology could be used
by the mainstream media too, to manipulate the public.
Inside
this increasingly artificial reality, is there really anyone today
who holds the keys of the 'ultimate' truth? I don't think so.
So, this
bizarre panic around the mainstream media about this new, and indeed
frightening technology, is not coming from their concern that you
will be heavily misinformed. It's coming from the fact that they want
the monopoly to misinform you. Because they know that after decades
of lies and propaganda being upgraded to a literally scientific
level, their credibility today has reached a record low.
Celebrities
can be inserted into porn videos by anyone. I don't like it. I don't
think is right. Personalities should be protected and perhaps we need
a new legislation code to achieve that.
But what
about the mainstream media pundits who will use this frightening
technology to grab the consent of the masses for another devastating
war with millions of dead?
Comments
Post a Comment