Home For Fiction – Blog

Why Are There Fake News?

There’s a question that has suddenly become relevant. But just because the question has acquired momentum, it doesn’t mean fake news is a new thing. It’s all about narrative, affect, and control. Here’s a piece of fake news that’s already a couple of thousand years old: “God comes to earth in the body of his own son [sic], he is crucified, he is resurrected [by his own self, presumably?] and everyone is suddenly absolved [from the fact that a woman supposedly once ate a goddamn apple].

As a narrative, this fake news has a linear progression, but with plenty of intertextuality, which enhances its appeal. Crucially, it also has a personal-experience perspective. It’s not just about some random nameless character in a galaxy far-far away, but about you – yes, you, you sinner! As a result, it has great affective power, and is therefore effective in its mission: To exercise control over the populace.

The Discovered-Manuscript Trope of Gothic Fiction

Whoa, I hear you say. What kind of a leap was that? How did we get from fake news to Gothic fiction? Bare with me, and you’ll see.

The “discovered manuscript” trope refers to the literary device – mostly used in Gothic fiction – of presenting the entire narrative as a true story. For instance, in Mary Shelley’s The Last Man, the introduction claims that the narrative is based on a collection of prophetic writings the author has discovered. Do you want a more recent example? William Friedkin’s notorious film The Exorcist is based on William Peter Blatty’s book, which is “based on a true story”, according to the author.

The reason for a story (particularly a scary story) to be “based on true events” is simple. Firstly, a narrative that is “based on a true story” is much more likely to have a greater affective power. In other words, it can disturb, frighten, or disgust much more efficiently than “fake news” – a story clearly presented as fiction. As a result, it can exert control more effectively.

Fake News Is not Fake because I, Me, Myself Experienced It

As I mention here, the mediocrity that seems to surround us can be partly traced to selfishness. I, me, myself. I, me, myself. There is nothing inherently bad with the fact that our only way to experience the world is through our senses. It feels as if we are the center of the universe because in a way we indeed are. The problems begin once we overextend our personal experience and assign to it the status of objective truth. Pretty soon, the experience becomes the fact.

Just go to the website of any given tabloid (you can also notice it with more “traditional” media, but it’s more pronounced with tabloids). Notice how the headlines are manipulated in a way that puts experience under the spotlight. For example, you might see “Mary, 37, talks about her ruined vacation: ‘The children were crying all night'”, which refers to experience. A headline focusing on fact instead, could be “Computer glitch causes lengthy delays at Heathrow Airport”.

From Experience-first to Fake News

At this point, you might wonder what is the connection between focusing on experiencing and fake news. I will mention one incident as an example that will underline the dangers lurking behind such strategies.

In July 2017 a fast- and erratically moving car hit pedestrians in Helsinki. In the first moments after the incident, social media filled with people expressing outrage at this act of terrorism, calling for immigrants to be deported/banned from driving/killed/[take your pick]. Soon later (if I recall correctly it was in the same evening), Finnish police announced the driver was a Finnish man, and the motive seemed to be related to intoxication and possible mental illness.

Despite this obvious, official fact, the reactions of those rushing to conclusions earlier didn’t acknowledge it. At best, they simply refrained from further comments (I suppose it’s hard to say “I was wrong”). More often – and more interestingly, for our view into fake news – the reaction was something like this:

Well, this changes nothing. He could’ve been an immigrant.

So, we’ve gone from “was” to “could’ve been”, and the rest of the discussion was predicated on this assumption. There were still talks about deporting immigrants, and all that. Because, hey, “I felt scared because I thought it was a terrorist – and he could’ve been – so how dare you belittling my experience”.