Fakedia, Churnalism, and Churnalists

We must stop calling the product ‘fake news’ as if it were a hideosity that is still some form of news.

Syed Talat Hussain

“Fake news” is the new focus all over the world. No debate about the role of the media ever misses out on this side of information life in the digital age. Here in Pakistan, the focus is even more intense. The Establishment, quick on the draw on anything that allows it to choke free speech, has found a convenient handle in “fake news” to beat down its critics.

For professional journalists, the fight to preserve their shrinking space for work—bringing facts to light and expressing informed opinions that speak truth to power—is becoming harder by the day. Fake news fusillade is damaging our reputations as well. ‘We’ are treated as ‘Them’ and ‘They’ as ‘Us’.

Foul-mouthing judges, shaming generals, running down political opponents, insulting and scandalizing those in power without proof and with venom get in the way of those who want to do real, honest, and purposeful critique. Fake news makers thrive on hurling around dirt and when they get into trouble they use the argument of free speech as their protection. ‘They’ pose as ‘Us’ and take ‘Us’ down to ‘Their’ level in public perception.

What to do with fake news?

First, let’s get our definitions right. Fake news should not be called ‘fake news’. It is an oxymoron like ‘think tank’. Just as tanks don’t and can’t think, no news by definition can be fake. Conversely, nothing that is fake can be news. By putting fake as a modifier before news we end up giving the product a certain legitimacy which it should not have and does not have. Fake is fake. News is news.

News can be inaccurate, incomplete, propagandistic, and plain wrong—all the problems that working journalists face in their line of work. But there are remedies available for them all. There can be corrigendums, corrections, rebuttals, and even apologies for professional mistakes. But fakes (whether in cold print, visual, or digital media) are NOT faulty news products. They are a deliberately designed package meant to be exactly what it is, FAKE. It is created to serve purposes opposite to what journalists attempt to achieve—informing the public.

Fakes aim to create fiction that is programmed to kill reality and damage the audience’s fair judgment.

The next distinction is even more important. Those who are creating this product are not journalists. They are not ill-trained, ill-equipped, ill-intentioned, or editorially biased—in other words, low-grade but still professional journalists. On the contrary, they are skilled labor working diligently to churn out Fakes knowing exactly what they are doing. They are professional assassins who are hired for a job or whose business it is to deliver fakes.

They have their style sheets, their infrastructure, (fake rooms), and production templates. Just google fake product apps to discover how much ready-made wherewithal is available for delivering this mal-content. They make money from Fakes. This is their job. This is their career.

They have a large consumer market that is attracted through clever marketing tactics (thumbnails and eyeball-grabbing pictures) and is retained the same way the porn industry holds its buyers: addiction to sleaze and filth. They operate with economies of scale—individually or collectively as groups and entities hired by state structures, spy agencies, political parties, and business interests—and have large budget inflows of their own. They are not Journalists at all. They are Churnalists—those who flood the market of opinion with low-quality fakes at a large scale and profit from this. Their profession is NOT Journalism. It is Churnalism—something that they are not ashamed of nor are apologetic about.

This brings us to the most important part of defining this cognation-impairing, judgment-distorting, thought-wrecking epidemic of our times. If Fakes are a well-conceived product, designed and delivered by Churnalists through an elaborate infrastructure of a new field called Churnalism, are they still not part of the media—print, audio-visual, or digital?

Let us get this right. Yes, Fakes, Churnalists, and Churnalism are an outgrowth of the mainstream (real) media industry. But given the scale of work, the sophistication of operations, advanced-level product diversification, the ever-expanding technological base of output, and an equally growing number of skilled workers that are employed, this entire supply and product chain has become an industry in itself. It is not Media. It is Fakedia.

True, the media industry’s bad DNA (misinformation, disinformation, distortion, exaggeration, planted news, etc) is the natural ancestor of Fakedia. But now Fakedia has diverged totally from the Media Industry to become a new species altogether. Just as dogs diverged some 40,000 thousand years ago from a now-extinct breed of wolves and became a new race. (Dogs are beautiful, productive, and hugely useful animals. It is just a simile to prove the point.)

Professional journalists and media bodies need to begin to define Fakes as Fakes. We must stop calling the product ‘fake news’ as if it were a hideosity that is still some form of news. Similarly, Churnalists have to be treated separately from Journalists; as should be their field, Churnalism, from Journalism. They all are part of Fakedia, which cannot be confused with the Media Industry.

It is only then we will be able to deal with their malevolence and their machinations. They are not us—journalists. They don’t deserve our protection, our professional umbrella, our support, and our rights. They must be tagged and called out—Churnalists producing Fakes from the field of Churnalism belonging to Fakedia.