The concept of “fake news” has shaken newsrooms across the country, as well as the American public. Facts have gotten lost in translation with whatever social media runs with, often before that information is verified by trustworthy sources. In the case of “Pizzagate” back in 2016, Edgar Welch fell victim to some hogwash on social media alleging that members of the Democratic Party were masterminds of a child sex ring, among other things, under a pizza shop in Washington D.C. Welch thought it was serious and legitimate, enough so to bring an assault rifle to search the shop for signs of the supposed captive children. From this, two ethical issues about the spread of “fake news” emerge: the public absorbing false information and then taking it to another level by acting on it.
Anyone can come up with some make-believe information, especially if there is something to gain from it. “Fake news” isn’t a new concept but with the speed of information and lack of verification on social media, anyone can become known within five minutes thanks to thousands of favorites, retweets or likes by random people who don’t feel the need to check the accuracy of whatever it is they just saw and are about to spread to everyone they know. To put it frankly, “outrageous and fake stories that go viral—precisely because they are outrageous—provide content producers with clicks that are convertible to advertising revenue (Tandoc, Lim & Ling, 2017).” Attention and financial gains can, in the eyes of some people, make it worthwhile to intentionally mislead people. It is one hundred percent unethical to knowingly spread false information, let alone stick by it for financial and reputational gain. Whoever started spreading this Pizzagate rumor put innocent lives in the balance. It could’ve been far worse than a man bringing in an assault rifle, as death seemed real to plenty of the patrons of Comet Ping Pong when Edgar Welch came in armed.
Things get to a whole other level of danger when the consumers of the information decide to act on it. In this event, Welch, the consumer of the information, drove all the way from North Carolina to Washington D.C. with a weapon: “He was motivated by stories he had read on right-wing blogs and social media that had developed this line of thought. In the process of his ‘self-investigation,’ he fired several shots into the ceiling of the restaurant (Tandoc et al., 2017).” The bigger issue, even beyond the information itself, is the fact that nobody controls how the consumer will react once they get the information. It’s also very difficult to give someone a reality check after absorbing “fake news”: “misinformation reduces the acceptance of the debunking message, which makes it difficult to eliminate false beliefs (Chan, M., Jones, C., Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D, 2017).” When Welch saw that information, he ran with it, turning misinformation into real danger for customers in the shop, people with no stake in the situation and were faced death because of some internet troll’s desire to lie. Unethical is the least-severe way to describe that.
In general, misinformation should not be relayed anywhere, especially on social media, where it spreads like wildfire. Had there been more than one Edgar Welch in this situation, things could have been so much worse for everyone involved. Misinformation is bad to begin with but social media takes it to a whole new level, spreading it to anyone and everyone in the world who decides to pull out their phone and scroll, let alone the people who decide to act upon what they’ve read without seeking verification from viable sources.
Sources:
- Tandoc, E. C., Jr., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2017, August 30). Defining “Fake News”. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
- Chan, M., Jones, C., Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017, September 12). SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617714579