What is the future of news? Bleak, probably.

[Author’s note: this article was originally published in November 2016.]

The wonderful thing about the internet is that it has democratized information. Everyone is now a click away from learning virtually anything about anything. In principle, this is progress. It’s a good thing that people have access to ideas.

There is a downside, though. Because anyone anywhere can propagate a lie at practically no cost or risk, there is really no containing the amount of bullshit percolating online.

As we’ve seen this election season, there’s a steep political price to be paid for this kind of epistemological pluralism.

Brooke Binkowski is the managing editor of Snopes.com, a website dedicated to debunking bogus stories, internet rumors, and malignant falsehoods. Snopes has done the thankless work of online fact-checking since 1995. Unsurprisingly, the site has seen its traffic spike by 85 percent over the past year.

The conventional view is that social media is the main culprit in terms of spreading misinformation online. Indeed, Mark Zuckerberg was compelled recently to address Facebook’s role in disseminating “fake news.”

Binkowski, who worked for many years as a reporter for CNN, has a slightly different take. For her part, social media is the low-hanging fruit in this discussion. The real problem is the collapse of faith in media as a trusted and credible institution.

I spoke with Binkowski about Snopes and about the broader failures of media this election season.

Sean Illing

So the media is everyone’s punching bag at the moment. What’s your general view of the media’s performance?

Brooke Binkowski

Well, after every election, everyone blames the goddamn media. I see and hear this every time, without fail. The media is the default whipping boy. So I don't see this election as any different in that respect.

To me, the wave of blame falling upon Facebook and social media in general is just 2016's version of “blame the media.” While I do agree that there's an issue of fake news, I don't agree that that's the fault of Facebook or Google or anyone else.

I really think that what we're seeing now with this influx of fake news is the end result of the systemic defunding of media entities for the past 10 years, if not more. We could see this happening in slow motion. We all knew that as trusted media entities began producing less investigative stories, less hard news stories, an information vacuum would emerge into which bullshit and propaganda would drop. This was inevitable.

Sean Illing

I understand all of that, and perhaps we can dig a little deeper into your point about the media being underresourced, but there are a lot of people — both within and beyond the press — who think journalism failed us in this election.

Is that fair?

Brooke Binkowski

I think the press as such has failed, but I also think they did the best they could with what they had. I'm well aware of the culture in newsrooms today, many of which are entirely virtual, and these people are being failed systematically. They're underpaid, overworked, and lack the time or resources to do their work well. So again, the problem isn't with individual reporters; it's the broader system that has failed.

Frustratingly, my answer to your question is yes and no. I don't think journalism failed; I think journalism was failed. If they're not given the resources and space they need to do their job, the job won't get done.

Lluis Gene/AFP/Getty Images

Sean Illing

Your thesis seems to be that more good journalism is the answer, but I see no reason to think that. There is plenty of good journalism right now. The problem is that it gets eclipsed by glittering bullshit and white noise and misinformation, and I’ve yet to hear a solution for that.

Brooke Binkowski

No doubt about it. My view is that that bullshit and white noise can itself be eclipsed by putting more news out there. I think a lot of quality news organizations have eroded their own credibility by putting out stuff that's based on Twitter gossip or poorly sourced non-stories.

Again, I don't necessarily blame individuals for that; it's a cultural problem within media. But every time this happens, it gives people an excuse to dismiss mainstream media as biased or sloppy or whatever.

Sean Illing

I take your point that the press has lost its credibility with a lot of people. What I’d contest is the claim that that skepticism has been earned. The New York Times and the Washington Post (and many others) haven’t betrayed their responsibilities in any significant way. But consumers are given that impression by pandering politicians and ideologically driven competitors.

So I think you may be misallocating some of the blame here.

Brooke Binkowski

I respect the New York Times a lot, but I wish they hadn't stooped to refuting all of Trump's outrageous claims, because that made them look like they had something to hide. And, look, we've also been the target of these kinds of smear campaigns.

I think all news organizations can do is keep doing their job and telling the truth. Eventually, these smear campaigns are revealed for what they are.

Sean Illing

Perhaps, but that doesn’t really solve the underlying problem, and in any case that’s a very optimistic view.

Brooke Binkowski

I realize that I sound ideologically driven and optimistic, but I have to hang on to my optimism — otherwise I'm not sure I can get out of bed in the morning. I really do think this is the case, however. There's always been misinformation and bullshit. What needs to change is the tenor of the public conversation.

Sean Illing

Let me try getting at this another way, because I don’t think we’ve really addressed what I consider the locus of the problem.

Even if the mainstream press was vibrant and consistent and responsible and well-funded, would we not still have the same problems with social media and an internet ecosystem spreading falsehoods and affirming biases? I think you understate the degree to which the “noise” can overwhelm everything else.

Brooke Binkowski

Well, our bullshit problem is always going to exist. There's nothing we can do about that. But the more information you put out there with context, the more likely you are to kill conspiracy theories and rumors in their tracks. These lies thrive in the gray areas where there's just enough doubt to foster suspicion.

So I agree that there's always going to be a problem, I just also believe that the best way to combat it is with vetted information that's thoroughly researched. That, as far as I can tell, is the only way to drown out the voices of rumormongers and ideologues.

Getty Images / DSGpro

Sean Illing

I suppose this is where we part ways. I’m just not that optimistic. I don’t think more and better reporting from trusted media sources is going to drown all this garbage out. I think the media space will just get more cacophonous, because the bullshit will always be easier to produce and spread than the facts.

There’s also a demand-side problem here that we have to acknowledge. People are seeking this stuff out. They want to hear what they want to hear, and the affirmative bullshit they’re getting is the market’s respond to their demands.

Brooke Binkowski

I think that's a small amount of the population, perhaps 10 percent in either direction. Obviously, that's an unscientific claim, but I think it's close to reality. The most marginalized trains of thought have been given the biggest megaphones in the internet ecosystem, as you put it, and that has skewed our perceptions in unhelpful ways.

Sean Illing

That may be true, but the outcome is disastrous all the same. The media is a for-profit enterprise like any other, and the incentives will always work in favor of the loudest and least constrained actors. The activity of reading the news has become indistinguishable from shopping, and I see no reason to think that will change anytime soon.

Brooke Binkowski

Well, why not put an editorial firewall back in? Media outlets can take the advertising money without tailoring their stories to appeal to a specific sub-demographic. There are, to put it mildly, problems with the structure of journalism, but there are things we can do to resist these destructive trends.

Sean Illing

What about the Fairness Doctrine? The [Federal Communications Commission] currently has the right to enforce it, but it’s not obligated to do so. Would forcing its implementation solve any of our problems?

Brooke Binkowski

That's an interesting question. I'd have to think it through before giving a useful answer. The airwaves are supposed to be for the people, and so, in that sense, it ought to be for the common good. I'm not sure if implementing the Fairness Doctrine would solve our problems, but I'd certainly be in favor of it if it did. It would, however, add fuel to the conspiracy theorists, who already distrust government and traditional media.

I would say that, in principle, the Fairness Doctrine would help. At minimum, it would mean that news organizations would have to devote a certain amount of time and resources to actual reporting versus clickbait or demographically driven content. It's hard to imagine that being a bad thing.

Sean Illing

Do you think news media will, eventually, have to be subsidized by the government in order to be saved?

Brooke Binkowski

I don't think so. I think advertising brings in quite a lot of money. But the model will have to change soon because of all the public outcry I'm seeing. It doesn't have to be subsidized in my view, though.

Sean Illing

Well, you’re definitely more hopeful than I am. So I’ll give you one more chance to talk me off the ledge. If it wasn’t already clear, my sense is that the internet has permanently undercut any possibility of truly authoritative sources of information. There’s just too much content, too much bullshit, and too many people who want to hear what they want to hear.

Please, I beg you, tell me I’ve got it all wrong.

Brooke Binkowski

I don't think you're overreacting, but I do wonder if we really need an authoritative source of information. Wouldn't it be enough to just be consistent and reliable and in-depth without being authoritative?

The old, traditional model of a few "authoritative sources" is excruciating to me in many ways. It's like sitting in grad school with some guy telling me, "This is how it is."

Sean Illing

Maybe “authoritative” is the wrong word. What I’m really reaching for is an arbiter of facts, some collection of institutions capable of validating truth claims in a universally accepted manner. In this election, at least, facts truly didn’t matter. “Post-truth” is an annoying buzzword, but I don’t have a better descriptor.

Brooke Binkowski

Just remember that the worst voices are often amplified. For every person on social media railing against George Soros or the Koch brothers, there are many, many more who aren't saying anything but are looking and reading and paying attention. The craziest people are always the most vocal.

It's easy to forget, but we're still in the very early days of the internet. We're still sorting it all out. My belief is that it will trend in a more positive direction as we move forward.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via