I GUESS “fake news” in the Philippines is a matter of national security in need of new legislation because not just one but three congressional committees are conducting a public hearing on this.
Yes, the House of Representatives committees on public order and safety, information and communications technology, and public information have joined forces to address the matter.
But so far, their resource persons have been vloggers and content creators mostly known to be supporting former President Rodrigo R. Duterte. I guess, for our congressional representatives, they are the dominant sources of “fake news” in the country that is why they have been asked to appear and answer burning questions.
Even the Presidential Communications Office (PCO) declared that “fake news” is “dividing Filipinos,” comparing our situation to the “discord the world is seeing in the United States.”
PCO seems to think this is so grave an issue that “neutralizing malicious online content is the big fight the nation should be waging.”
Or is it? Not injustice or inequality? Not corruption or violence? Not even education?
But what even is fake news, and why do our leaders think it is the most pressing national issue that needs all their attention, time, and energy?
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines fake news as “false stories that appear to be news, spread on the Internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke.”
Media scholar Brian McNair offers another definition: “Intentional disinformation (invention or falsification of known facts) for political and/or commercial purposes, presented as real news.”
So what distinguishes fake news from simple journalistic or editorial errors is the intention.
In an essay entitled “Media Literacy, Democracy, and the Challenge of Fake News” written by Lance Mason, Daniel Krutka, and Jeremy Stoddard and published by the Journal of Media Literacy Education in 2018, they explored the reasons why fake news has become prevalent and how it contributes to understanding the changing media landscape.
“The term fake news has been used effectively by President Trump and other members of his administration to attempt to delegitimize journalists and any journalism outlet that publishes stories they disagree with or that are critical of them,” they wrote.
Sounds familiar, right? The keywords being “disagree with” and “critical of them.”
The article gave a brief history of media manipulation and stressed that “the term fake news is far from a new idea.” Although the term “false news” has been around since the 16th century, the term fake news appeared to have emerged in the late 19th century.
Alongside fake news is the term “yellow journalism,” used to describe exaggerated or outright fabricated stories and was connected to profit motives by news organizations.
“Yellow journalism has been blamed for stoking the fervor that led to the Spanish-American War and was arguably the frontrunner of what became tabloid journalism,” the article noted.
With the development of media technologies like radio and television, new possibilities for persuasion have been capitalized on by both advertisers and politicians. Although media manipulation is an old story, the term fake news has not been a key term in media discourse until recently.
The emergence of the Internet and social media dramatically altered media coverage and perception. Newspapers have experienced shrinking advertising revenues because of diminished sales due to increased competition from the Internet. With decreasing revenues, coverage has also decreased, and in-depth reportinghas lessened. This has also increased the likelihood of reporting factual errors and passing press releases as news without vetting them for bias and inaccuracies.
Media companies also shifted to sensationalistic reporting and stories that are more likely to go viral, generating more clicks and revenues. This only adds to the public perception that mainstream media cannot be trusted. The loss of their credibility gave rise to citizen journalists and content creators — which is both a good and a bad thing.
The good thing is that social media has allowed marginalized voices to raise the profile of social issues and organize grassroots movements (for example, #MeToo #ArabSpring). But the bad thing is that the social media ecosystem is increasingly being controlled by private corporations who prefer profits over democracy. This economic model incentivizes the creation and dissemination of fake news.
The change in media dynamics because of the Internet and social media heightened the impact of media manipulation. Public trust in media has declined, along with distrust of politicians and social institutions.
So, is fake news the main problem, or is it just a symptom of a bigger and deeper problem?
I believethat fake news is just a symptom of the larger problem of erosion of deeper structural issues such as distrust, polarization, the economics of media, human cognitive biases, and the power of technology.
Fake news thrives in an environment where trust in traditional institutions — such as government, mainstream media, and scientific communities — has been undermined. When people feel that these institutions are biased, corrupt, or untrustworthy, they become more susceptible to alternative narratives, even if those narratives are false.
Aside from the loss of trust, there is also a decline in critical thinking and a lack of media literacy. So, people are not equipped to distinguish credible sources from unreliable ones.
The modern media landscape is dominated by an attention-driven business model. Social media platforms and news outlets prioritize engagement over accuracy because their revenue depends on clicks, shares, and views. Emotionally charged content spreads far more rapidly than fact-based, nuanced reporting.
The overwhelming abundance of information sources online has also led to the splintering of shared reality. People increasingly consume news from echo chambers that reinforce their beliefs, making them more resistant to contradictory facts. Humans are wired to seek confirmation of their existing beliefs (confirmation bias) and to trust emotionally compelling narratives over facts. Without a common baseline of reality, fake news spreads unchecked.
Fake news is often weaponized for political and ideological purposes. This is not a modern phenomenon. Propaganda has been used for centuries, but the Internet has made it more efficient and far-reaching.
Addressing fake news requires tackling these root causes rather than just focusing on fact-checking or removing misleading content, or regulating online content through legislation. Solutions must involve restoring institutional credibility, reforming media incentives, promoting media literacy, and rethinking how technology shapes our access to information.
Maybe the House of Representatives is a bigger problem than the fake news it is trying to stop?
