Fake News And Credibility In Journalism

Journalism is a pivotal part of the public being exposed to information about the happenings of the world (Wilke 2013). Journalists are required to provide an honest depiction of events that would be otherwise hidden in plain sight. With the increase of platforms to receive information, such as online reporting, the public is exposed to a wide variety of inaccurate facts that negatively skews the levels of trust that exists for the press (Richardson 2017 pp. 1-3). It has become harder for journalism to remain as influential as it once was due to the growing distrust from the public (Keane 2013, n.p.). The greatest challenge facing journalism today is the lack of trust it receives from the public, especially due to the idea of fake news and

It impacts how the public consumes and responses to the press (Tsfati 2008, n.p.). Journalistic credibility is currently marginally low than it was decades ago (Osborn 2001, p. 5). This is an issue for the journalism community as it impacts their ability to share news effectively to the public. Once the public decides that all journalism is no longer a credible form of information, they will be forced to solely depend on information released by the government, allowing for fake news and propaganda to reign (Bird & Dardenne 2009). “Online reporting” is largely part of this problem (Osborn 2001, p. 7). With majority of newspapers entering the digital age, it is easy for the public to confuse credible informants with unreliable ones. The quality of investigation dedicated to potential stories and sources separates reliable journalism from untrustworthy journalism (Kovačič, Erjavec & Štular 2010, p. 125). It is becoming harder to verify stories and sources however, which influences the credibility of journalism in the public eye. The decline in credibility highly influences the amount of fake news circulating in the media in recent years (Leber & Schulman 2017,

When this story first broke, there was no question as to whether or not it was true, especially since Gibson had a book deal with Penguin Publishing (Smith 2015). This was a reliable corporation in the public’s eye, which allowed for the mass spread of misinformation. After it was revealed that Gibson’s story was all fiction, attention turned to Penguin Publishing, where it was found that little to no research was conducted to confirm Gibson’s story was true (Donelly & Toscano 2016). The publishing company received large amounts of backlash from the public stating, “the company had just as much blood on [their] hands as she does” (Donelly & Toscano 2016). Penguin’s credibility with the public dropped due to their part in the circulation of fake news. The credibility of media sources that supported Gibson also received similar