UK Government Screws Head On Straight, Bans Use Of Term 'Fake News' By Gov't Officials

from the stopped-clock-governance dept

A government has decided to handle “fake news” in about the only way it should be handled. FINALLY. While most governments appear willing to treat “fake news” legislation as a gateway drug to censorship, the UK government — a government that certainly isn’t known for its rational handling of speech issues — is going the other way.

It’s a decision that treats the term with all the respect it deserves: none.

The government has banned the term “fake news” after urging ministers to use “misinformation” or “disinformation” instead.

The phrase – a favourite of US President Donald Trump – will no longer appear in policy documents or official papers because it is “a poorly-defined and misleading term that conflates a variety of false information, from genuine error through to foreign interference in democratic processes,” officials said.

This is a shocking development. While some government figures have recognized the term is divisive and generally means nothing more than “stuff I don’t like,” most have felt compelled to do something about it. A lot of this “something” has presented itself as pressure applied to social media platforms. For other governments with a more authoritarian bent, the term has proven to be a handy way to directly control new agencies and third-party content posted to social media services.

The UK’s clearheaded stance isn’t likely to be adopted by others. It returns too much control to citizens and strips the term of its power. But this is the way governments should approach the loaded term: by first admitting they have a problem. A nebulous term that acts as a partisan dog whistle should be eliminated from governments’ vocabulary. As is suggested here, it should be replaced with clearly defined terms far less likely to be abused by politicians looking to score easy points in front of the home team crowd.

“We recommend that the Government rejects the term ‘fake news’, and instead puts forward an agreed definition of the words ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. With such a shared definition, and clear guidelines for companies, organisations, and the Government to follow, there will be a shared consistency of meaning across the platforms, which can be used as the basis of regulation and enforcement,” [the Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Committee] stated.

This is a remarkable turnaround, considering only a few months ago DCMS members were going after Facebook for contributing to the “fake news that threatens our democracy.” Included in this package of adopted recommendations is (surprise!) the abandonment of a social media tax targeting Facebook and Twitter — two companies routinely blamed for the incredible amount of stupidity and misleading content posted by their users.

Some sanity has prevailed somewhere in the world. Let’s try to enjoy that.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UK Government Screws Head On Straight, Bans Use Of Term 'Fake News' By Gov't Officials”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
88 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

“This is a shocking development.”
I can’t agree to this.

I can’t imagine any world leader emulating the fucktard residing in the White House, and failing to use “fake news” is a great start to separating them from that idiot whose fingers can’t seem to stop tweeting anti-American (democracy) statements.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Oh piss off. The media lies all the time and deserves to be called Fake News. A perfect example was CNN last night during the Presidents rally in Wisconsin.

Trump is still following through on all of his campaign promises and doing what I voted him into office to do.

As far as I’m concerned, despite his lack of articulation, he’s doing a fantastic job.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

As far as I’m concerned, despite his lack of articulation, he’s doing a fantastic job.

Do you know how to get perspective on the "job" he’s doing? Step outside the situation and the partisan politics and take a good look from a distance.

The view from 3,500 miles away is that watching the US being "led" by a man who makes Nigel Farage look like a reasoned, broad, cosmopolitan and empathic thinker by comparison would be utterly hilarious if it weren’t so damn dangerous for the entire rest of the world to have such a self-evidently (and self-confessedly) horror of a (barely) human being in such an apparently un-checkable and critical position.

Just so you know…

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Language peeve:

In the term "fake news", the word "news" is not short for "news media". It refers to (some subset of) the actual stories and reporting which the news media provides.

CNN is not news. CNN is part of the news media; in particular, it is a news organization, and also a cable TV network. None of those things are news itself.

Since CNN is not news, CNN cannot possibly be "fake news".

You could argue that what CNN reports is "fake news", but CNN itself is not and cannot be "fake news", because the thing called "CNN" is not an instance of the category called "news".

That’s not something specific to CNN, mind you; exactly the same things are true of Fox News.

Donald Trump has been perverting the language by misusing the word "news" in this context ever since his first (public) use of the phrase "fake news", and it’s well past time people stopped letting that pass without comment.

Call me Al says:

Re: Re:

I think you are misunderstanding this.

They haven’t banned the term fake news nationwide. Their opponents can still use it.

They have banned the use by their own side, i.e. the government itself.

This is not censorship of the country. This is the government choosing the language they would prefer to be used.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“The way you combat a political movement is not by banning the oppositions slogans but instread by crafting an effective message and slogan of your own.”

Indeed. One way of doing this is to tell people to stop using terminology in official communications that are “poorly-defined and misleading (and) conflates a variety of false information”, and instead used standardised terminology with agreed upon definitions. Which is what they’re doing?

Would you rather official government documents contain phrases that are misleading and routinely used to deliver false information? I don’t see the problem here, so long as the same standards are applied should such idiocy appear elsewhere on the political spectrum.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Apparently the OP and a diminishing quantity of others are not trying to be civil when they call for civility.

They want everyone else to be civil towards them while they continue their attacks unabated. We have been witness to this childish behavior many times now, let’s try it one more time because the results might be different – not.

HL5 says:

Re: Re: misleading

…Oh really (?)– and the specified ‘acceptable’ terms “misinformation” & “disinformation” are NOT “poorly defined” ?? Everybody defines, uses, and understands those 2 words in exactly the same way?

Dictating “proper” words and speech is a fool’s game at best … and more commonly a villain’s craft.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: misleading

Everybody defines, uses, and understands those 2 words in exactly the same way?

That is called a perfect solution fallacy. You suggest that because the preferred words do not have 100% unambiguous and universally agreed upon definitions, that we should give up and just use any word, no matter how misleading or vague. This is of course ridiculous because while probably very few if any words in English are identically understood by everyone, that does not mean they are all equally well suited for a particular task.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 misleading

“This is of course ridiculous because while probably very few if any words in English are identically understood by everyone, that does not mean they are all equally well suited for a particular task.”

With the above in mind, some people try to communicate with each other in a manner in which they can understand such differences and make adjustments/corrections in order to better communicate rather than simply flinging insults while assuming others are arguing against their pov. I think this characteristic is one of many that define differences between human beings and animals. Some act like humans and others act like animals.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: misleading

“Everybody defines, uses, and understands those 2 words in exactly the same way? “

They certainly should if they are communicating official documents. Doubly so if these are government and not corporate documents. Every professional environment has guidelines on how to communicate, some loose, some very much not. I would hope the government has the same kind of rules when dictating policy as my company does when dictating the language that should be used in public relations documents.

What, specifically, is strange or wrong about that? If you want freedom to interpret things the way you want to, do it on your own time.

HL5 says:

Re: Yay! -- Government Censorship

+1

banning your political opponent’s peaceful slogans/speech is a really really bad idea and grossly anti-democratic.

Shocking how many people here instantly love the idea.

Plus, Fake-News is an accurate, easily understood, and useful term for standard old terms like propaganda &agitprop.

BEWARE of people who want to control and define “acceptable” speech — they are authoritarians in their basic worldview.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Yay! -- Government Censorship

Accurate and easily understood, is it? Please advise how accurately it is being used in current conversation. Show your work – not just Trump’s usage, but everyone’s usage. I want evidence that it is actually being used to described fabricated stories and actual propaganda.

Aside from that, this isn’t a banning of the term being used by people in general. The citizens of the UK are allowed to use it as much and as idiotically as they please.

This is a ban on using it in policy documents. In other words, government officials, in the course of performing governmental duties, are advised by the government not to use the term “Fake News” due to concerns over the current misuse of the term and the confusion that arises from it, and provides more clearly-defined terms for official usage.

So, no, this isn’t censorship, because the term is not banned to the general public, and nothing I’m seeing indicates that government employees can’t use it in their personal lives. Just not while executing their duties.

HL5 says:

Re: Re: Re: Yay! -- Government Censorship

geez. the term ‘censorship’ does not require the immediate involvement of an entire national population. Official censorship has to start somewhere — a government could censor only one person… and it would still be censorship.

The UK government is trying to change the social culture with small steps. (see “Cultural Marxism”)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

There’s so much FAKE news being thrown out by the mainstream media. Been nothing but lies. They should get called out on it.

I don’t think there should be any laws banning so-called fake news because anything could be deemed fake news depending on anyone’s views. Besides being a free speech thing. Of course in the UK, they don’t have our constitution. So banning so-called Fake News seems like something else dumb they’ll try doing there in the UK.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That’s a pretty specious argument, and focussing on the use of the word "nothing" is disingenuous.

Reality is that media, nearly all media, fails to report news and instead reports theory, innuendo, rumors and speculation. All of it heavily politically biased. As long as you avoid learning all of the available facts you can take one or two small bits of info and twist it to mean whatever you want. Most viewers/readers are too lazy to learn for themselves and swallow whatever the media wants to feed them.

If you treat all news as fake but based one some grain of truth, read/view multiple sources from any or all sides of the isle, you can glean the reality of the situation. But that takes critical thinking just as grasping this comment does.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

That’s a pretty specious argument, and focussing on the use of the word "nothing" is disingenuous.

Unlike claiming "There’s so much FAKE news being thrown out by the mainstream media. Been nothing but lies" without citing one single example. That’s just sound reasoning.

Reality is that media, nearly all media, fails to report news and instead reports theory, innuendo, rumors and speculation. All of it heavily politically biased.

Say, you didn’t provide any examples either.

But that takes critical thinking just as grasping this comment does.

Is that you, Chip?

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

But that takes critical thinking just as grasping this comment does.

The problem is that it’s his critics who grasp his comments with their critical thinking to a far greater degree than he could ever hope to.

That’s a pretty specious argument, and focussing on the use of the word "nothing" is disingenuous.

Nothing disingenous about the simple task of using a single disproving example to destroy some moron’s absolute claim. It’s just how things work in the non-Sith real world.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Nothing disingenous about the simple task of using a single disproving example to destroy some moron’s absolute claim.

Eh, "nothing but" was clearly intended as hyperbole. If he had actually written some kind of cogent argument, and then the other guy had replied and only responded with a smartass response about the "nothing but" line, then that would have been disingenuous.

However, given that the post claimed "nothing but lies" and then cited not one single example of a lie, I think pouncing on the hyperbole was a completely reasonable response.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

This does not ban the usage of the term by the general public. This bans of the usage of the term by the government, especially in policy documents, due to concerns over it being poorly defined and therefore ill-suited for usage in policy documents or government business.

This isn’t even law, and it doesn’t apply to verbal speech by ministers. From the telegraph article linked in the techdirt article:

"While ministers may speak freely in the House of Commons, any strategy documents referring to election meddling or internet safety will need to use the new definition. "

This is the government deciding that it won’t use the term in documentation. So – how is this censorship?

Anonymous Coward says:

dont worry, as has happened before, some group or other will complain and this sensibleness will go out the window! no government, least of all the one in the UK, is known for having sense! the last time it showed any was when the new copyright law came into play. that lasted about 5minutes because one of the copyright industries was going to lose about 5c a year and couldnt bear it!!

ryuugami says:

Singlespeak

The phrase (…) is “a poorly-defined and misleading term that conflates a variety of false information, from genuine error through to foreign interference in democratic processes,” officials said.

Halle-fucking-lujah. Thank you, UK officials. These last couple of years, I was shocked and dismayed to discover how many people fail to distinguish between "deliberate lie" and "honest mistake". I mean, one of those idiots already reared their ugly head up there in another thread, FFS.

"Fake news" should be used to describe exclusively The Daily Show, The Onion, and similar satirical "news".

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Singlespeak

…IIRC the Daily Show reported on actual events with a satirical or comedic bent, as opposed to making up news stories. The show itself was more along the lines of news entertainment – though there might have been some actual “fake news” segments, with made-up stories. I haven’t watched it in a while.

Anonymous Coward says:

I hope this is sarcasm, Mike

Sooo we can’t say “fake news”, but we can still lie?
OK, call it “misinformation”, “disinformation”, “fake news”, or whatever. Lying can be punished, but it can’t be abolished or done away with or else the 10 Commandments would have done so–but it’s impossible to keep the 10. Those commandments were give to show man that we are incapable of perfection, and that we need the Grace of God: namely Jesus Christ.

Man has free will, thus, man lies (Christian’s too). It’s impossible for people not to lie because we’re born with the propensity to lie, and sin in general. Notice, no one has to teach children how to lie (just how to lie convincingly).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I hope this is sarcasm, Mike

Why are you hoping this is sarcasm? As a Christian myself, I applaud the UK Government in this instance of sanity in deciding not to use a term that can be dramatically interpreted to mean whatever you want. It’s a step in a correct direction, so why would anyone dismiss this attempt to do the right thing?

What is it, in specific, that you are suggesting be done or exhorted here? Are you suggesting that we not attempt to uphold the law? The book of Romans has some things to say about that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I hope this is sarcasm, Mike

I’m just suggesting that calling “fake news” — “misinformation” instead, is just sugar coating the issue. What’s the difference? ‘Lying’ is ‘Lieing’.
Furthermore, forbidding people from using a trendy term or statement, that won’t be around forever anyway, is merely censorship. Doesn’t the UK have enough camera’s already?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I hope this is sarcasm, Mike

The government is not forbidding the general public to use the term. They are banning its use in policy documents. I see no problem with this. It’s not censorship. It’s the government vetoing the use of a "trendy term" with serious issues around the interpretation of its meaning in the course of the execution of its duties, and inclusion in documents or regulations that will far outlast the use of the term itself, in the event that it does eventually fall out of favor.

Additionally, there is a difference in the connotations of "Fake news" and "misinformation/disinformation," purely in the usage of the word "news" in the term.

Fake news can and often does have all sorts of implications towards news in general, casting suspicion on the veracity of any group or person, regardless of track record. If you want to engage in that in your personal life, go ahead, no one is stopping you. The UK government is still not stopping you if you live in the UK.

But that kind of language has no place in government policy documents. Usage of it by government officials in the execution of government duties makes me leery because of it being so easy to link that usage to governmental oppression of free press.

Misinformation and disinformation, on the other hand, are not at their core tied to the press. Misinformation can be spread by literally anyone, not just journalists or those masquerading at journalists. As a term that lacks problematic connotations, it is far superior for usage in official policy or the execution of governmental duties.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 I hope this is sarcasm, Mike

Of course it won’t stop people from lying. That’s not the point of the move.

The point of the move is so that the Government does not use a term with problematic connotations, unclear interpretations, and a recent history of being abused in partisan politics in their policies and in the execution of their duties – exactly the realms in which being clear in what you mean is critically important.

Is the government not supposed to exert editorial control over their communications and policies to ensure clarity of meaning?

Talmyr (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: I hope this is sarcasm, Mike

1) It’s the government ‘censoring’ itself. Not the public. Read better.

2) Except it’s not censoring itself, it’s simply making sure people clarify which of two terms it means. And no, they are not equal or equivalent – there is a huge difference between making a mistake or phrasing something badly and reporting that as truth (which tends to lead to retractions and corrections), and outright lying (which a fact check can often verify).

So it makes sense to clarify things further, especially to stop the “fake news is anything I don’t like” brigade.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I can't believe...

We are cheering a government for deciding not to engage in the usage of a problematic term in policy documents.

This is not a general ban on use of the term by everyone. This is ban on using it in the execution of governmental duties due to concerns over its interpretation.

This is not censorship. This is a government deciding to be intelligent with their policy language. Of course this will be cheered – a decision of this nature will help dispense with attempts to poorly regulate a problem that can’t be fixed the way people think it can be fixed.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

Re: Re: I can't believe...

Utter nonsense. The phrase is being banned because trump uses it, frequently.

Read the article:

“The government has banned the term “fake news” after urging ministers to use “misinformation” or “disinformation” instead.

The phrase – a favourite of US President Donald Trump – will no longer appear in policy documents or official papers because it is “a poorly-defined”

It’s “poorly-defined”? The preceding paragraph DEFINES it as misinformation and/or disinformation.

If you want to ban WRONGLY “defined” words start with all the idiots using “optics” when they mean “appearances”, and “decimated” when they mean “devastated”.

“Fake News” is simply “propaganda by established ‘news’ sources”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I can't believe...

Not the way Trump uses it. That’s certainly what it should mean, but the current social conversations use the term to mean "stuff I don’t like regardless of it’s veracity."

So, in light of the term being co-opted by Trump and others, including those who don’t like Trump, and its current usage being wildly inconsistent with its actual meaning, it has no place in policy documentation.

There is no point in using a charged term like Fake News when a better defined and unproblematic term can serve the same purpose in a better fashion.

Avoiding the use of "Fake news" in policy documents also avoids any implication of the government attempting to abridge the freedoms of the press, so honestly, it probably shouldn’t be used by government officials to begin with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I can't believe...

We are cheering a government for deciding not to engage in the usage of a problematic term in policy documents.

This is not a general ban on use of the term by everyone. This is ban on using it in the execution of governmental duties due to concerns over its interpretation.

This is not censorship. This is a government deciding to be intelligent with their policy language. Of course this will be cheered – a decision of this nature will help dispense with attempts to poorly regulate a problem that can’t be fixed the way people think it can be fixed.

Anonymous Coward says:

I thought one of the many functions of government, no matter which flavor, was the documentation of their policies, practices and procedures. The reasons for doing so are obvious, or at lest I thought so.

In order to placate the thin skinned and reactionary pundits, most of whom do not even reside in the UK, I suppose the UK government could put said phrase in quotes rather than omitting it altogether. But I doubt that will stop attempts to maintain the ongoing state of bullshittery.

Zof (profile) says:

Re: Just call it was it was originally called.

1) scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2) lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3) use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
4) dramatic sympathy with the “underdog” against the system.

1) check
2) check: (the least flattering photo contest)
3) check: typically misleading headlines and fake experts
4) check: pretending their rich sociopath 1 percenters are somehow better than the other side’s.

This is easily 95 percent of all news during one of the Yellow Journalism outbreaks (fake controversies)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

A) This is the UK. They don’t have the First Amendment, they have different things, the details of which I am not aware of.

B) This is a ban on the usage of the term in policy documentation.

From the Telegraph article linked in the Techdirt article:

“While ministers may speak freely in the House of Commons, any strategy documents referring to election meddling or internet safety will need to use the new definition.”

It boils down to an editorial decision on what verbiage is appropriate to use in government documentation, based on concerns over the lack of clear definition of the term “fake news” and the existence of better verbiage.

Even were this the US, this type of action would not violate the first amendment. It abridges nobody’s freedom of expression, because government employees would still be able to say “fake news” all they want outside of official policy documents.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Gotta ask...

No idea, as I don’t live in the UK and am not privy to UK government documentation.

I’m not surprised that Google found nothing – other such editorial decisions are unlikely to make the news, and those types of documents are rarely, if ever, published to places a search engine can find – corporate world tends to do the same, with internal documentation of that nature not out on the public web. It’s a question that is best asked of the UK government directly.

I speculate that editorial guidelines would additionally prohibit the use of derogatory language, such as the various pejorative terms that exist for people of various ethnic descents, as an example.

ECA (profile) says:

For all the BS..

For all the words that mean the same thing..
Saying it HOW it is, means nothing IF you dont fix it.

Its the same concept as taking a Corp to court, and no one goes to jail.

Both side and everyone has seen..The 1 side/group makes a BAD ADVERT and PAYS for it to be broadcast..(YES ITS AN ADVERT)

They can say/do anything, and even Fake the information and videos..Show the person thing, animal, in any position you want..
(How many Christian channels do we Need, reading the bible and Screaming at us to tell us WHAT CHRIST DID/DIDNT DO??)

That LAW we had about EQUAL TIME for politicians…was fun, as EVEN THE LITTLE PARTIES had access to the TV..NOW, they have to PAY as much as the BIG parties to place an ADVERT..

How do you fight something that was Set on TV, and try to find the people WHO said it..? HOW do you get a retraction?
Then you take it to court and SEE who the Judge believes in the next 6-12 months..

How to Prove TRUTH?? and even if you can PROVE it, They can take you to court, and COST you TONS OF MONEY and TIME..
This is the Lawyers game..No logic needed..

takitus (profile) says:

Not censoring the public

It seems that many commentators had some difficulty understanding this article. The UK government is not banning British citizens from using the phrase, but only its own members. Since governments—including, as Tim points out, some of the worst regimes on the planet—have been the worst abusers of the term “fake news”, this is indeed a good move.

Stopping government officials from muddying the waters with garbage phrases like this is, I think, a net positive for free speech. Consider the (first) US Red Scare: if the McCarthy-era government had required officials to use the word “communist” to refer to those and only those people proved to members of the Communist party, would things have been a bit more sane? Quite possibly.

ryuugami says:

Re: Not censoring the public

It seems that many commentators had some difficulty understanding this article.

Or even the article’s title.

I guess once they saw "Bans Use Of Term ‘Fake News’" in the title, their veins bulged, their vision clouded, they started frothing at the mouth, screaming obscenities at the screen, mashing the keyboard to announce to the world that this. Is. An. OUTRAGE. Hulk SMASH!

Ergo, they never got as far as "By Gov’t Officials".

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...