Horn 1

E. Horn

Mrs. Elizabeth Boyd

English 101

10 December 2020

The Role of the Federal Government in Regulating the Media and Preventing the Circulation of

“Fake News”

In the past few years, citizens in the United States confronted headlines like these:

“Coronavirus Bioweapon - How China Stole Coronavirus From Canada and Weaponized

it” (“Fake News”), “Donald Trump Sent his own Plane to Transport 200 Stranded

Marines” (“Fake News”), “Obama Signs Executive Order Banning the Pledge of

Allegiance in Schools Nationwide” (“Fake News”), and “Pope Francis Shocks World,

Endorses Donald Trump for President” (“Fake News”).

Such headlines result in confusion, asking that citizens question known information and facts,

and they often lead to poor decisions. Media is necessary, and society turns to the media for the

answers to their questions about current events, weather, shopping, health, and more. However,

as disinformation and misinformation, popularly known as “fake news,” run rampant, media

needs to be restricted and regulated, at least in part, by the government and the companies that

own media resources. If the current situation is not addressed and solutions proposed, people

across the globe will continue to be manipulated into believing lies, resulting in the erosion of

the faith and trust in the media, government, and other American institutions.

As important background, “fake news” is information, facts, and stories that are untrue

and causes political and business disruptions. In recent years, “fake news” spread frequently and

evolved into a hotly debated topic, especially during the 2016 and 2020 presidential primaries
 Horn 2

and elections, when Ukraine and Russia intentionally spread disinformation to disrupt the

democratic process in the United States (“Social Media” 242). In addition to Ukraine and Russia,

a small Macedonian town was responsible for the creation of 100 websites promoting President

Donald J. Trump through false stories (Toronto 2018). In these elections, “fake news” not only

negatively impacted the reputation of the United States, but it proved detrimental to political

campaigns and severely impacted the trust citizens have in their media and country (Anthony and

Moulding 154). These incidents also resulted in blatant confusion, preventing the ability to make

clear and thoughtful decisions because citizens did not know what to think of the “fake news”

and grappled with how to distinguish the “fake” from the “true.” Another example of “fake

news” is regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. According to an article by Emily Vraga et al.,

“[disinformation and misinformation circulate] surrounding the origins of the virus, how it

spreads, and how to cure it, which could deter effective preventative behaviors” (475). The

authors describe how chloroquine, a chemical, was painted as a “cure” using false information.

Ultimately, the “fake news” resulted in harmful health effects to those who believed in the false

information (Vraga et al. 475). By individuals believing that a cure existed, they would likely not

take the virus seriously. Therefore, disinformation and misinformation continue to be a serious

threat to the United States.

Other countries often view the United States aspirationally, admiring the Constitutional

freedoms offered to Americans. However, when the United States’ election system is hijacked by

other countries promoting their own interests (“Social Media” 242) and “fake news” is created to

confuse citizens in the midst of a pandemic (Vraga et al. 475), citizens are frequently subjected

to false information. As a result, the “fake news” subsequently alters their beliefs and leads to the

creation of their own worldviews, resistant to actual and legitimate facts. As an example, even
 Horn 3

the current President of the United States tweets thousands of times with a majority considered

false statements (Virden 3). Disinformation and misinformation in the United States are resulting

in the cataclysmic decline of trust in the American government and the media.

If “fake news” continues to spread, a loss of trust and confidence will occur. Citizens will

ultimately stop using the sources that do not support their worldview, losing respect for their own

nation, government, and each other. Additionally, other countries will begin to second guess

their alliances with the United States, risking American foreign policy. Numerous studies have

demonstrated "an uninterrupted decline of trust in the political sphere in all countries: declared

confidence in individual politicians, in political parties, the government, the political system, and

even democracy, has been reduced from 71% in 1956, to 22% in 2012, just in the U.S.A...."

(Echeverría and Mani 119). This statistic indicates the severity of this declination of trust and

how quickly trust can dissolve, particularly with the dissemination of “fake news.”

To prevent the further deterioration of the United States’ reputation and the trust and

respect for the United States’ government and alliances, the country must take action to halt the

spread of “fake news.” But, the most significant barrier to action, the United States Constitution,

is also ingrained in the nation’s identity and fundamental to a free society. The most infamous

amendment is the first amendment, stating “Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Const. Amend. I). This amendment allows

Americans to speak freely and express themselves, and it also provides media companies with

the right to report on any selected subjects and events.

The founding fathers did not foresee the extent to which “fake news” is circulating in

modern society. Freedom of speech is necessary for a d​emocracy to function, especially freedom

of speech for the press (Solis and Antenangeli 1112). Citizens need sources of information to

make decisions, which is necessary for citizens of a democratic country, where the voices of the

people are heard and citizens directly impact policy and government (Virden 2). Information is

essential, and citizens must be supplied with current events; however, falsified information,

which was not as unrestrained and dangerous when the Constitution was drafted, is destructive to

the United States (Solis and Antenangeli 1112). Protecting the United States from disinformation

and misinformation can be considered the protection of the nation’s prosperity and the

administration of foreign affairs. The founding fathers who drafted the first amendment would

likely have seen the ill-behaving culprits supporting the spread of false information as

disgraceful, and these culprits would be seen as enemies to the nation (Toronto 194). They must

be held responsible.

Historically, the United States had restrictions on the press. To obtain a license to

broadcast on television or radio, the restrictions had to be followed, and these were called the

“Fairness Doctrine.” When reporting about a controversial issue, both viewpoints were required

to have air time. Additionally, media companies were required to give political candidates

approval to respond to commentary. Companies broadcasting also had to limit obscenity. Due to

a lack of effectiveness and because many claimed it clashed with the first amendment, the

“Fairness Doctrine” is no longer used (“Social Media'' 242). Other countries have had or do have

press restrictions as well, including China. News is only allowed to be shared by news entities,

and media sources are restricted from sharing any news that can endanger the country,

compromise solidarity, encourage discrimination or hatred, infringe upon religious practices,

cause social instability, share false information, and much more (“Provisional Regulations'' 98).

These rather different approaches to the press have varying impacts on their country’s citizens.

Governments that are too lenient, similar to the United States, have issues with “fake news,” and

governments that are too restrictive, like China, possibly have citizens desirous of more freedom

to share their opinions. Some countries that control their media too much might also result in

those in power having excessive authority and influence with no checks on that power.

Moderate restrictions would be the most reasonable solution to the “fake news” issue at

hand. As noted above, having extreme restrictions can be quite detrimental, but being too lenient

is often unsafe. In other words, one possible solution would be “guardrails” for the United States,

restrictions that protect the country from racing off of a hypothetical mountain of lies into the

depths of chaos, while also not preventing citizens from having a voice and receiving true,

verifiable news and information from media outlets. Examples of this moderate type of solution

include the government requiring media sites to rigorously fact check the media they share,

discouraging false information by making it easier to sue those that share disinformation and

misinformation, and creating penalties for sharing false information repeatedly.

Additionally, the United States needs honest journalism. As Carl Bernstein, an

investigative reporter known for revealing Watergate (“Carl Bernstein”), said, “the lowest form

of popular culture - lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the

truth or the reality of most people’s lives - has overrun journalism.” People across the world need

sources and information they can trust to develop informed opinions to make decisions. If the

spread of “fake news” continues, society will not know what to believe. While China’s

censorship is not the answer, a measured approach to regulating media, including required fact
 Horn 6

checking, lower barriers to legal action, and government penalties for the repeated dissemination

of “fake news,” would be effective in combating disinformation and misinformation.

Works Cited

Anthony, Angela, and Richard Moulding. “Breaking the News: Belief in Fake News and

Conspiracist Beliefs.” Australian Journal of Psychology, vol. 71, no. 2, June 2019,

pp. 154–162. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/ajpy.12233. ​Accessed 10 November 2020.

“Carl Bernstein.” ​Biography.com​, A&E Networks Television, 20 Aug. 2020,

www.biography.com/media-figure/carl-bernstein. Accessed 8 December 2020.

Echeverría, Martín, and Evelia Mani. “Effects of Traditional and Social Media on Political

Trust.” Communication & Society, vol. 33, no. 2, Apr. 2020, pp. 119–135. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.15581/003.33.2.119-135. Accessed 10 November 2020.

“Fake News: Separating Truth From Fiction: 4. Fake News Examples.” ​LibGuides,​

libguides.valenciacollege.edu/c.php?g=612299&p=4251645. Accessed 8 December 2020.

“Provisi​onal Regulations on the Management of Internet Sites Engaging in the Business

of Posting News.” Chinese Law & Government, vol. 48, no. 2, Mar. 2016, pp. 97–100.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00094609.2015.1048148. Accessed 10 November 2020.

“Social Media and the Public Interest: Media Regulation in the Disinformation Age.”

Arab Studies Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 3, Summer 2020, pp. 242–244. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.13169/arabstudquar.42.3.0242. Accessed 10 November 2020.

Solis, Jonathan A., and Leonardo Antenangeli. “Corruption Is Bad News for a Free

Press: Reassessing the Relationship Between Media Freedom and Corruption.” Social

Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), vol. 98, no. 3, Sept. 2017, pp. 1112–1137.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/ssqu.12438. ​Accessed 10 November 2020.

Toronto, William D. “Fake News and Kill-Switches: The U.S. Government’s Fight to

Respond to and Prevent Fake News.” Air Force Law Review, vol. 79, June 2018,
 Horn 8

pp. 167–206. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=132402486&site=ed

s-live. ​Accessed 10 November 2020.

United States Constitution. ​Amend. I. ​Accessed 10 November 2020.

Virden, Dick. “A Media Journey: From Edward R. Murrow to Fake News.” American

Diplomacy, 2018. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.577909977&site=

eds-live. ​Accessed 10 November 2020.

Vraga, Emily K., et al. “Empowering Users to Respond to Misinformation about Covid-19.”

Media and Communication,​ no. 2S3, 2020, p. 475. ​EBSCOhost,​

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.632091998&site=

eds-live. Accessed 8 December 2020.

Weinberg, Steve. “Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.” ​Columbia

Journalism Review​, no. 3, 1993, p. 57. ​EBSCOhost​,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgbc&AN=edsgcl.14358146&site=e

ds-live. Accessed 8 December 2020.