"From the start," warned journalist Glenn Greenwald on Thursday in response the proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron, the phrase "fake news" has been used as a "rhetorical term with no definition, ensuring abuse. First, Trump appropriated it to attack journalism. Now Macron is exploiting it to obtain government control over the internet. Terms that lack definition are propaganda." (Photo: Ludovic Marin)
Proposal by France's Macron to Ban "Fake News" Denounced as Recipe for Disaster
Calling the term one ripe for "abuse," a warning that French president is "exploiting it to obtain government control over the internet"
Following a proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron for the government to be given sweeping powers to block online content deemed "fake news" during national elections, critics caution that such a move would put the country on a slippery slope towards authoritarian-style censorship that would ultimately do more harm than good.
"From the start," warned journalist Glenn Greenwald on Thursday in response to news of Macron's call, the phrase "fake news" has been used as a "rhetorical term with no definition, ensuring abuse. First, Trump appropriated it to attack journalism. Now Macron is exploiting it to obtain government control over the internet. Terms that lack definition are propaganda."
According to the Guardian's coverage of Macron's plan, which he detailed in a speech on Wednesday, news published during an election determined to be "fake" would trigger "an emergency legal action" allowing "authorities to remove that content or even block the website." In addition, the CSA, the French government's media watchdog, would be empowered to fight against "any attempt at destabilization" by television stations controlled or influenced by foreign states.
"At election time, on internet platforms," Macron said in his speech, "the rules applying to content won't be exactly the same."
However, using the U.S. media's infamous failures leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as an example, Greenwald argues that allowing a government to act as the arbiter of what constitutes "fake" vs. "real" news is a recipe for disaster.
"So if the Bush admin in 2002 had the power to block "Fake News" from the internet, you're saying they'd have blocked (false) Judy Miller stories about Iraqi WMDs & Jeffrey Golbderg on the Saddam/AQ alliance?" he asks of a commenter responding to his original tweet. "Or would they have blocked (true) stories denying those things?"
Over the years, Greenwald has said much the same of the term "terrorism," which in the American political arena is used to describe the violence committed by other people and foreign governments, but never the violence perpetrated by the U.S. military or its proxies around the world.
While much has been made of so-called "fake news" in the U.S. following the 2016 presidential campaign, a study published this week revealed the false news stories, even those spread wildly on social media platforms, had "little impact" on those exposed to them and likely did little or nothing in terms of influencing the outcome of the elections.
"The reach of fake news was wide indeed, the study found," the New York Times reported, "yet also shallow."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Following a proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron for the government to be given sweeping powers to block online content deemed "fake news" during national elections, critics caution that such a move would put the country on a slippery slope towards authoritarian-style censorship that would ultimately do more harm than good.
"From the start," warned journalist Glenn Greenwald on Thursday in response to news of Macron's call, the phrase "fake news" has been used as a "rhetorical term with no definition, ensuring abuse. First, Trump appropriated it to attack journalism. Now Macron is exploiting it to obtain government control over the internet. Terms that lack definition are propaganda."
According to the Guardian's coverage of Macron's plan, which he detailed in a speech on Wednesday, news published during an election determined to be "fake" would trigger "an emergency legal action" allowing "authorities to remove that content or even block the website." In addition, the CSA, the French government's media watchdog, would be empowered to fight against "any attempt at destabilization" by television stations controlled or influenced by foreign states.
"At election time, on internet platforms," Macron said in his speech, "the rules applying to content won't be exactly the same."
However, using the U.S. media's infamous failures leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as an example, Greenwald argues that allowing a government to act as the arbiter of what constitutes "fake" vs. "real" news is a recipe for disaster.
"So if the Bush admin in 2002 had the power to block "Fake News" from the internet, you're saying they'd have blocked (false) Judy Miller stories about Iraqi WMDs & Jeffrey Golbderg on the Saddam/AQ alliance?" he asks of a commenter responding to his original tweet. "Or would they have blocked (true) stories denying those things?"
Over the years, Greenwald has said much the same of the term "terrorism," which in the American political arena is used to describe the violence committed by other people and foreign governments, but never the violence perpetrated by the U.S. military or its proxies around the world.
While much has been made of so-called "fake news" in the U.S. following the 2016 presidential campaign, a study published this week revealed the false news stories, even those spread wildly on social media platforms, had "little impact" on those exposed to them and likely did little or nothing in terms of influencing the outcome of the elections.
"The reach of fake news was wide indeed, the study found," the New York Times reported, "yet also shallow."
Following a proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron for the government to be given sweeping powers to block online content deemed "fake news" during national elections, critics caution that such a move would put the country on a slippery slope towards authoritarian-style censorship that would ultimately do more harm than good.
"From the start," warned journalist Glenn Greenwald on Thursday in response to news of Macron's call, the phrase "fake news" has been used as a "rhetorical term with no definition, ensuring abuse. First, Trump appropriated it to attack journalism. Now Macron is exploiting it to obtain government control over the internet. Terms that lack definition are propaganda."
According to the Guardian's coverage of Macron's plan, which he detailed in a speech on Wednesday, news published during an election determined to be "fake" would trigger "an emergency legal action" allowing "authorities to remove that content or even block the website." In addition, the CSA, the French government's media watchdog, would be empowered to fight against "any attempt at destabilization" by television stations controlled or influenced by foreign states.
"At election time, on internet platforms," Macron said in his speech, "the rules applying to content won't be exactly the same."
However, using the U.S. media's infamous failures leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as an example, Greenwald argues that allowing a government to act as the arbiter of what constitutes "fake" vs. "real" news is a recipe for disaster.
"So if the Bush admin in 2002 had the power to block "Fake News" from the internet, you're saying they'd have blocked (false) Judy Miller stories about Iraqi WMDs & Jeffrey Golbderg on the Saddam/AQ alliance?" he asks of a commenter responding to his original tweet. "Or would they have blocked (true) stories denying those things?"
Over the years, Greenwald has said much the same of the term "terrorism," which in the American political arena is used to describe the violence committed by other people and foreign governments, but never the violence perpetrated by the U.S. military or its proxies around the world.
While much has been made of so-called "fake news" in the U.S. following the 2016 presidential campaign, a study published this week revealed the false news stories, even those spread wildly on social media platforms, had "little impact" on those exposed to them and likely did little or nothing in terms of influencing the outcome of the elections.
"The reach of fake news was wide indeed, the study found," the New York Times reported, "yet also shallow."