Robert Talisse getting foxed by fake news

News is stuff that's new. Why would we want to know about new stuff? In general, this is so as to receive confirmation that one is on the right path or else to be alerted that one has taken a wrong turning.

Should news be stuff that is important to one? Not necessarily. Entertainment- vicarious participation in collective emotions- is the most we ask for provided there is no vital change we need to be making to our life-plan at the moment.

The problem with accepting any given channel or medium of entertainment is the problem of addiction or dependency. If the channel or medium is monopolistic there is a risk that it will exploit us. In Democracies, there is also the problem of 'agenda control' in multi-dimensional decision spaces as well as 'virtue signalling' and preference falsification. Any degree of imperfection in the market for entertainment- which is what most news cashes out as for most people- is bound to lead to fake news crowding out the genuine article. That doesn't matter very greatly because we are sceptical about what entertains us. The thing is a sort of fairy story or soap opera. Only fools get worked up about it.

The philosopher, Robert Talisse has an article in 3 A.M magazine which neatly demonstrates what happens when one confuses 'news' with 'new stuff its important for me to know about'.

He writes-

There is as yet no canonical definition of fake news. Still, there might be reason to hope. Perhaps we share a conception of fake news that is inchoate, waiting for an explicit definition. Given this possibility, we should attempt to devise a definition.

There is no canonical definition of 'fake' or 'news' or 'canonical' or 'definition' or anything else under the Sun. Why should we hope otherwise? What good would it do? 'Fake news!' is a cry of exasperation like 'Worthless gobshite!' We don't want or need a canonical definition of it. 

Why would we share a conception of  something? The only reason is if there was selective pressure on the fitness landscape militating for epigenetic channelisation in that respect. This would mean that some 'mechanism' would exist- legal, administrative, religious, cultural or arising out of the market- in which case there would be a 'canonical definition' but it would be contested. This imposes costs on society. We may want to incur such costs when it comes to Medical or Legal or Financial matters, but we don't want to do any such thing when it comes to terms like 'worthless gobshite' or 'fake news!'

Begin with an intuitive view. Whatever else might be involved, fake news attempts to deceive by means of communication.

Nonsense! The Daily Star or the National Enquirer weren't trying to deceive anyone by publishing stories about buses which ended up on the moon or Big Foot being sighted at Walmart.
News outlets are concerned with circulation figures which are a measure of their market power from which they can extract reputational or pecuniary rents.

This suggests three components. First, fake news is a kind of communication; specifically, it involves reportage.

It needn't do so. It might involve editorialising and a bunch of talking heads pretending some terrible malaise has gripped the country. Reportage includes shite like 'the UN rapporteur on Right to Food in Scotland has announced that Glaswegians are now worse nourished than Eritreans'.  

Second, as fake news aims to deceive, it involves reportage of what is false (or at least misleading).

Nonsense! When we hear the UN Special Rapporteur say 'Scotland faces challenges on the right to food, including high levels of food insecurity and diet related health inequalities and problems with access to land'- we don't really believe that Scots are starving because evil land-lords are evicting them from their crofts and trampling over their vegetable patches. We think they are eating deep fried Mars bars and spending all their money on drink or down at the bookies. Still, we may approve of this absurd pretence that Westminster is starving the Scots just as we approved of Mrs Thatcher being depicted as a 'Milk Snatcher'.

Third, as authentic news sources can report what is misleading (due to honest journalistic error, for example), fake news must involve an intention to mislead. Tying these together, fake news is intentionally misleading reportage. To tighten things up further, add that fake news is the reportage as news of content that is intentionally misleading.

Authentic news sources feature official announcements which are intended to mislead and throw a false light on events. We don't expect every journalist to begin his interview with a politician by saying 'Why are you lying to us, you fat sack of shit?' Even Jeremy Paxman didn't go that far.

This simple definition looks promising. But difficulties loom. To see what they are, let’s explore an analogy with garden-variety lying. It is surprisingly difficult to produce a satisfactory definition of lying. Take the popular view that lying is intentionally asserting what’s untrue. This analysis fails, as one could lie while asserting what is true. To wit, if I believe that your spouse is at the bar, but when you ask me her whereabouts I report that she is at the library (a report which I believe is false), then I have lied to you, even if your spouse is indeed at the library. I intentionally asserted a true proposition, but I nonetheless lied.

Yawn! We already know all this. 

Perhaps our initial view could be rescued with this minor tweak: lying is intentionally asserting something as true that one believes is false. Although this improves on its predecessor, it also fails. There are contexts where one lies even when asserting a truth that one believes. Think of cases where one makes an assertion that one knows one’s audience will misunderstand. Bill Clinton famously asserted “there is no sexual relationship” with Monica Lewinsky, knowing that his audience would understand him to be claiming that there never was a relationship. Clinton uttered a true proposition that he also believed, but he nonetheless lied.

This is 'shedding false light'. Once again, this is something everybody already knows. 

Given such considerations, one might distinguish asserting what is untrue from making an assertion designed to mislead. But we needn’t pursue this matter further. My point has been only that popular definitions of lying fail to capture certain clear instances of lying. The broader lesson is that simple definitions of complex phenomena must give way to nuanced ones.

Talisse's point is invalid because there is no popular definition of lying. Why? Because the population isn't stupid and doesn't spend time doing stupid and pointless things. Only Philosophy Professors do.

Similar problems lurk for the tidy definition of fake news. We said that fake news is reportage as news of content that is intentionally misleading. Though initially plausible, this can’t be correct. Consider two cases.

Only you said that, Talisse. We didn't. If we are affected adversely by a certain piece of reportage then we consult a lawyer. Depending on the jurisdiction, we may have an action for defamation, or false light or under right to privacy or something else. It depends.

First, imagine a television news channel that routinely over-reports crimes committed by immigrants, and neglects to report crimes committed by non-immigrants. Regular viewers tend to develop the impression that crime is far more common than it is, and that immigrants commit the most crimes. This channel offers no misleading reports; it accurately depicts the events it covers. Nonetheless, this is a clear case of fake news. Our definition cannot identify it as such.

Nevertheless, depending on Jurisdiction, the Law may permit an action being brought against the Channel. Some Jurisdictions score better than others in this respect and, for economic reasons, others may seek to catch up with them.

Second, consider someone who seeks to maximize revenue produced by his website. He finds that posting fabricated accounts of lurid conspiracies involving prominent politicians reliably increases site traffic, which in turn enables him to sell ads at high rates. Suppose that his intention is not to mislead anyone, but only to maximize revenue. Stipulate further that he would be sincerely surprised to discover that visitors to his site tend to believe his outrageous posts. Perhaps he regards his site as a source of sardonic entertainment, and so denies that his site presents content as news. Still, visitors tend to regard his site as an authentic news source, and accept what he posts as fact. Our proprietor has none of the intentions or motives required by our definition, but this nonetheless is a case of fake news.

But all news outlets are subject to economic constraints. All face the same moral hazard. Talisse has taken a long time to get to the common sense view. 

As with lying, one could introduce tweaks designed to more finely contour the concept of fake news until it fits the varied cases. Regardless of its general utility as a philosophical exercise, as a political matter, this endeavor is doomed. Here’s why.

No philosophical exercise has any general utility. That's why we all consider the subject to be shit.

We were hoping that the consensus across political divides on the dangers of fake news could provide fertile ground from which repair fractures in our democratic culture.

Why on earth were you hoping that? Why not hope that there would be a consensus across political divides not to steal money or fuck interns or talk worthless shite? 

However, in order for an analysis of fake news to serve this purpose, it must be politically impartial.

Nonsense! For an analysis of a political problem to serve a useful purpose, it must be framed in justiciable terms consistent with those upheld by the Judiciary. Political impartiality does not matter. Only Justiciability does. Consider what happened when the Labour Party first formed a Government. It was recognised that they didn't have enough law-officers of their own, so the Liberals lent them people with the required skill-set. They may have been highly partial, but- in the best tradition of the Inns of Court- they discharged their professional duty in an entirely proper manner. Similarly, though Congress was the dominant party, it permitted people like Dr. Ambedkar, a thorn in its flesh, to take a leading role in drafting the Indian Constitution. Later, Ambedkar dismissed this contribution of his as 'hack work'. He didn't mean he had botched the job but rather that he had discharged his duty with the highest professionalism despite holding different political views.

That is, we require a definition that could identify instances of fake news independently of the political valence of its perpetrator.

The Law can do this. Statistical techniques can be used as evidence of bias or 'false light' even if no testimony of malice is introduced- the thing depends on what laws obtain.

 Expert testimony can be sought. The 'political valence of its perpetrator' is irrelevant. A neo-Nazi defended by a Jewish attorney knows he is getting the best possible defence. This does not mean the Jewish attorney sympathises with his client's views. 

Obviously a definition fails if it stipulates that fake news is a tactic used only by conservatives (or liberals, or Republicans, or what have you). Our conception of fake news must not be politically opportunistic. Whatever we say fake news is, our definition must render it possible for parties across the political spectrum to be guilty of deploying it.

We already have offences of defamation, false light, and so forth. In the same way that Companies and Auditors can be made to prepare 'true and fair' accounts, so too can News organisations. But, the game is not worth the candle because news doesn't much matter. Where it does- for e.g. if a News outlet consistently 'puffs' certain penny shares or fraudulent pyramid schemes or, worse yet, quack medicines and bogus doctors- then it is likely that State Prosecutors are already zeroing in on the culprits.

Politics doesn't matter very much in a Democracy because the median voter prevails. From time to time, a correction might be needed because of virtue signalling preference falsification and rent-seeking agenda control, but judicial and administrative checks and balances already exist.

There really isn't very much to see here. Move along folks!

Therein lies the trouble. We saw above that no simple definition of fake news will suffice.

We saw nothing of the sort. There can be a juristically 'buck stopped' definition of 'fake news' just as there is of 'shedding false light'. The Law sorts this sort of stuff all the time. Philosophy simply plays with itself and jizzes in its own eye.

However, as our discussion of lying demonstrated, in order to construct a nuanced definition, we must build upon specific cases that we take to be clear-cut instances of the phenomenon in question.

We don't need a nuanced definition, we need a justiciable 'buck stopped' one. Stare decisis law can build on specific cases. Philosophy can't. It isn't protocol bound and 'buck stopped' in the same way. It has no way of distinguishing ratio from obiter dicta or deciding what is de jure and what is de facti. A lawyer may say one thing as a lawyer but this does not bind him as a  Judge. Rather he is bound by the ratios of previous Judgments. Philosophy doesn't work that way at all. Actually, it doesn't work at all. The thing is a wank.

Remember that we appealed to Bill Clinton’s statement as a case of lying, and then used that case to show the inadequacy of one proposed definition of lying.

Clinton lied. There are no two ways about it. That is why his law license was suspended. The US Supreme Court disbarred him and he resigned rather than appeal this decision. Why? Coz the law says he lied and he was a lawyer and he knew he could not prove otherwise. Philosophy may be shite but the Law isn't.

In other words, we craft a definition of lying partly by testing proposed conceptions against cases that we independently assume to be clear instances of lying. We proceeded partly by saying, “Whatever lying is, this definitely should count as a lie!” The same goes for an analysis of fake news. We test the merit of a proposed definition partly by looking to cases that we already regard as instances of fake news.

You don't test the merit of anything at all because you've got shite for brains. Why? Because you teach a worthless subject.

Thus we confront what philosophers call the paradox of analysis.

Which, since Quine, few philosophers believe is a real thing.

Any definitional endeavor must begin from presumed instances of the phenomenon that is to be defined. In many philosophical contexts, the paradox’s “I know it when I see it” circularity is manageable because philosophical debates often proceed against wider background agreements.

So, there is 'buck stopping'- as in the Clinton case. A lawyer lied and the Law said he lied, and so he was fined and his license was suspended. Deliberation is only tolerable if it is terminable in a protocol bound fashion- i.e. there is cloture or what Kripke called 'buck stopping'.

Something similar could be done to Journalists and News organisations. But we don't think it would be worthwhile to do so because we find 'fake news' entertaining. 

For example, philosophers who disagree sharply about justice nonetheless agree that antebellum slavery is an exemplary instance of severe injustice. Similarly, metaphysical disputes over the nature of physical objects typically presume that tables and chairs are among such entities.
Things are far more troubled with fake news. In order to devise a nuanced definition that is also politically impartial, we must identify cases of fake news that can be presumed to be noncontroversial among otherwise divided citizens.

There is absolutely no need to do so.  All that is needed is to identify a justiciable right- viz. that of not being harmed by 'fake news'- linked by an incentive compatible viculum juris to a specific obligation. News reportage can be like Audited Accounts; indeed, something like this already obtains in certain organisations- e.g. the license payer funded BBC- and in certain jurisdictions.

I doubt that there are such cases.

Nonsense! 'Clinton cleared of lying by Supreme Court' is fake news. Everyone, including Clinton, would agree on this. 

Consider that any proposed conception of fake news will include reference to the intentional dissemination of false or misleading political information by institutions posing a news sources. So if we require a politically impartial account that could win broad assent, we will need to begin from assumptions about specific instances when purported news institutions have engaged in intentional deception. It seems to me that our political divisions run so deep that there are no cases that will be generally agreed to be instances of intentional political deception.

Bollocks! ISIS was disseminating fake news about what was happening in America. The Americans had no difficulty agreeing to shut down its Social Media Channels.

The Judiciary has ample powers to ensure no citizen loses 'due process' type rights as a result.

What’s more, there are similarly deep divisions over what makes an institution an authentic news source, and even what journalism is.

These deep divisions don't matter. What matters is that this is an economic activity and, therefore, some incentive compatible mechanism, enshrined as a vinculum juris, must exist which can do the job in question if, that is, it is worth doing.

Accordingly, any definition that begins from the premise that, say, Pizzagate is a paradigmatic case of fake news will likely be dismissed as politically opportunistic.

Dismissed by whom? A Judge? A Legislative sub-committee? Nonsense! The people involved understand very well what is required of them- viz. to come up with a rule set which will pass judicial muster. Political partisanship may muddy the waters a little, but- if the thing is worth doing- won't stop the job getting done.

To any such account, one will find conservatives who will respond, “If that’s the paradigm of fake news from which your view proceeds (rather than, say, the whitewashing of the Benghazi incident), then your account is rigged against us.”
To put the concern more generally, every nuanced definition of fake news is likely to appear to some as opportunistic, designed to impugn certain regions of the political spectrum and vindicate others.

How 'things appear to some' doesn't matter if the thing is worth doing. That's why Democracy under the Rule of Law actually works. 

A definition of fake news that serves only to further tar our political opponents is counterproductive. In order for a conception of fake news to do positive work in rehabilitating our political culture, we require an account of the phenomenon that could win agreement across our political divisions. Under current conditions, no such account is available.

Sez you. But you have no power. You are a shithead- which is why you teach a worthless subject and are shilling a stupid book by writing this column.  

Our current media and news environment is toxic for democracy.

Really? So Democracy is going to die is it? Care to bet on it? No? Then you are lying. 

It deserves unrelenting critique. Nonetheless, we ought to give up the idea that there is such a thing as fake news. There is no such phenomenon. The term is best regarded as a political slur, much like “snowflake,” “libtard,” “wingnut,” or “trumpkin,” except that it attaches not to individuals, but to the (nominally) journalistic enterprises that one regards as hostile to one’s political loyalties.

So Talisse has finally arrived at the conclusion I began this post with- 'fake news' is an expletive like 'mother-fucker'. However, there is a crime which corresponds to fucking your mother and we feel it worthwhile to enforce the relevant law. I may call you a swindling little sneak thief and that may relieve my feelings, but, if the sum involved is large enough and the matter is justiciable, I will also take you to court or report you to the relevant authorities.

Accordingly, the statement “CNN is fake news” should not be understood as ascribing properties to CNN that render it a spurious news organization; rather the statement is strictly expressive, akin to the exclamation “CNN sucks!” No one bothers to devise an analysis of what it means for a network (or anything else) to suck. That’s because there is no such property.

Of course there is such a property. If CNN sucks w.r.t such and such a demographic, its revenues are affected. Capital markets take note. It may have enough market power to continue sucking ass big time- but that is a question for Competition policy. 

There is no fake news.

Yes there is- it if it worth our while to make it an offence, then it will exist in a juristic, buck-stopped, manner for the law to take cognisance off. Some such thing has already happened in certain jurisdictions with respect to specific matters. 

But that’s distressing, isn’t it? Although we all agree that our political divisions are threatening our democracy, those very divisions may now run so deep as to subvert our attempts to explain the dangers they pose.

This is all in your head Talisse. You don't understand Democracy under the Law and are getting your knickers in a twist because you have absurd beliefs about some supposedly unprecedented 'division' in your country created by some supposedly 'toxic' thing called fake news. You may think this is happening because of some occult 'subversion'. You are wrong. The fault lies in your own stupidity, no where else. Teaching Psilosophy has robbed you of what little intelligence you once had. Go write another worthless book so we can all snigger at you behind your back.

Yet in the absence of a detailed account of those dangers that could be embraced by all, we have little chance of counteracting them.

OMG! Prof. Talisse is a genius! I'm going to send him my detailed account of how the neighbour's cat has been subverting Democracy by spreading fake news about that time I peed in the sink coz I was too hung over to make it to the toilet and Donald Trump was in that sink and now everybody probably thinks I'm a Russian hooker which is so like not harasho tovarich.