Scott Saxton Interview

Would you say that the use of the term “fake news” has affected media and journalism?
It absolutely has had an effect on media and journalism. The most significant effect is it has encouraged journalists' to make sure their information is more bulletproof than ever. It is fair for journalists to expect to be able to defend their work, but you are now seeing more and more process stories with journalists /showing/ their work.  They are explaining how the information came about, how it was vetted and the sources of their material.  I think you've also seen stories out of national media that have significantly more sources.  For example, a national story may quote "administration officials" but historically only been one or two people.  Now, there are some stories requiring confirmation of as many as four to five times that number.  This helps solidify the information even more if you have independent verification.  The term "fake news" has also required some journalists to admit errors and explain how it's happened.  From a negative standpoint, I think the term "fake news" is being used so often by people who have no other valid material to oppose the facts of a story, that it muddies the water between what is real and what is fake. If everything is fake, then what is to be trusted? Some basic facts are being disputed now and it's hard to advance as a community when a common set of facts have a difficult time getting adopted.


2. How has media been used to either credit or discredit people or countries?



"Media" is a very general term that can mean any type of content that is used to influence a number of outcomes, from informing to persuading to calling to action.  Journalism is about enlightenment and understanding, so when you ask about Media, I believe you want to know about the broad sense of its impact on something.  It's being used all the time.  Look at North Korea.  There is a concerted "Media" effort on behalf of the government there and the state-run television organization in NK to influence a negative public opinion about western lifestyles, with the United States being a significant recipient of that hatred. North Korea uses a media campaign to discredit the United States.  In the US -- any political campaign uses media to credit its own candidate or discredit its opponents.  You see this in negative advertising all the time.  The examples are endless.



3. Are political talk shows (not news stories) more/less biased than, say a column in the newspaper?



I don't think they are more or less biased than a newspaper column, but those are two different crowds.  Political talk shows often deteriorate into a heated discussion (or shouting match) between two parties trying to get their talking points across to each other. They play to an audience that wants to be spoken to and may not be as thoughtful in their argument.  Newspaper columns, while opinionated by definition, tend to have more nuance and source material to help make their case.  The reader is opting in to read the column, so they have a little more investment than the average Cable TV viewer.  Both are used to sway opinion, so I don't think they are more or less biased.  But I do think they have different audiences.  My opinion here is that the reader of a newspaper column tends to be a little more informed.



Hope that helps.



Scott