Here’s an interesting piece of click-bait in The Guardian: a bravely anonymous and supposedly ‘young(ish), left(ish), British arts student’ confesses to—and defends—writing fake news aimed at racists, right-wing extremists and gun fanatics. The problem is: I don’t believe a word of it.
Of course, as a leftist liberal, I was suitably wound up on first reading. The author purports to be a PhD student, but comes across as astonishingly unreflective and, if truth be told, a bit of a dimwit. After claiming in one paragraph that s/he has written for a racist website, we are told a few lines later that ‘I have never … been racist’; after admitting to writing things that the author knows to be untrue, we are told that ‘I don’t count this as lying’. If knowingly writing or saying untruths does not count as lying, then I wonder what does.
Three curious arguments sum up the author’s apparently low-wattage mind. First, there is an odd defence of fake news on the grounds that this is not a new phenomenon, with the virulently anti-Semitic Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer and Pravda, the Soviet propaganda sheet, cited as precursors. The argument seems to be: I stand in the noble tradition of Julius Streicher (the editor of Der Stürmer), so what I’m doing is fine.
The second strange argument is: ‘I don’t think people have died as a result of my work.’ (It is extremely difficult to measure either the enjoyment or suffering that my own writing generates, but that’s not a reason for me to think that there is none.) Was Streicher thinking something similar at Nuremberg when confronted by the evidence of the Holocaust? (Probably not, since Streicher remained to the end fanatically committed to anti-Semitism and Hitler.) Perhaps those who wrote for Pravda also carefully distinguished between their promotion of certain ideas, and the millions dying around them in the name of those ideas. The author admits to ‘furthering ignorance … and contributing to an atmosphere of hatred’, but presumably supposes that any deaths arising out of that ignorance and hatred are nothing to do with him or her. The author claims to have written a PhD (though I am highly sceptical about this—see below), but doubtless accepts that his or her thesis is probably pointless, since (according to the author’s own logic) it will have no meaningful impact on the world.
The third argument is: ‘I don’t see that much difference between [selling gun accessories and selling newspapers]’. The author intends this to be understood as: (1) we’re all just trying to sell something, and it really doesn’t matter what it is; and (2) neither guns nor newspapers kill people; people kill people. Here’s the argument in more sophisticated form: all things—guns, newspapers, knives, kittens, nuclear weapons, flowers—are morally neutral. Even if I am holding a gun in readiness to shoot someone, the gun itself remains morally neutral. There is nothing wrong, therefore, with promoting morally neutral things—and especially not if I am making money out of doing so. If someone buys a gun because of something that I’ve written, and then uses the gun to commit murder, I bear not an iota of responsibility.
Is it worth wasting much more time pointing out how weak these arguments are? I doubt it. The article has done what it intended to do: annoy a proudly liberal snowflake such as myself. And then it occurred to me: the article is itself fake. I’d wager that it is an admittedly clever bit of trolling by a far-right extremist and gun fanatic, designed to do the following: (1) annoy leftists and liberals; (2) portray leftists and liberals as hypocritical, stupid and morally bankrupt (at one point it is claimed that the author, and all the author’s liberal friends, think that writing fake news is all just a bit of a laugh); and (3) promote the apparent attractions (earnings of £2,400 for sixty hours’ work per month is the dubious claim) of offering one’s services to the far right. Okay, so it got me on (1) briefly. But once I was over the initial outrage, it became fairly obvious that nothing about the article is believable.
What a wonder the postmodern age is: The Guardian seems to have published a piece of fake news about fake news. And no, I’m not in the habit of routinely labelling anything I don’t like as ‘fake news’. But an anonymous article such as this one is completely unverifiable—there’s nothing anywhere in the article that gives it authority or credibility, and it only takes a moment’s thought to realize that there are no grounds to believe it, and indeed that plenty of it does not ring true at all. In short, the article appears to be nothing but a right-wing wind-up, so ‘fake news’ would seem to be an apt description.