Fake News Isn’t New; History Offers A Way To Fight It

    by Rich Shumate
    May 18, 2017

    Imagine opening your morning newspaper (itself a novelty these days) and finding a story about, not just life, but entire civilizations on another planet, attributed to one of the world’s foremost astronomers. Would you believe it, or might you suspect that some “alternative facts” had found their way to your doorstep?

    Back in 1835, many readers in New York ended up believing just such a tale. The New York Sun, then one of the city’s leading newspapers, printed an elaborate six-part series about exotic animals living on the moon (including human-like creatures with wings), purportedly discovered through a gigantic newfangled telescope. The source of the information was Sir John Herschel, who was an actual real-life astronomer but had nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun’s scoop.

    Rough image of lithograph of “ruby amphitheater” described in the New York Sun newspaper in August 1835. Public domain image.



    Somebody at the Sun (just who remains something of a mystery) made the whole thing up, in an effort to goose its circulation. The hoax did eventually unravel, although the newspaper never retracted the story.

    Today, of course, we are battling similarly fake news, found not only in dark corners of the Internet but in mainstream venues such as Facebook. Yet, even in our “post-truth” world, it is still virtually unthinkable that a major newspaper in a major U.S. city would publish information that it knew to be demonstrably false.


    Are journalists inherently more responsible today than they were in 1835? Are they simply less interested in building an audience for their work than their predecessors? No, and no. The difference is that today’s journalists operate within a system that provides the audience with confidence that what they are reading, hearing or watching is true—a system which developed organically and relies entirely on voluntary compliance.

    In the 19th century, newspaper audiences had no reason to be confident in the veracity of what they were reading. Professional training for journalists did not exist, nor were there any widely accepted standards for how news should be gathered or produced. Many newspapers were also aligned with a political party and used their news columns to support a particular partisan viewpoint.

    The Sun, which began publication in 1833, was at the vanguard of what was called the penny press—a low-cost, mass produced product that democratized access to newspapers beyond the well-to-do. But a mass publication required a mass audience, which led, regrettably, to travesties like the Great Moon Hoax.

    This situation reached its nadir in the 1890s, with so-called “yellow journalism,” in which sensationalism, scandal and stretching the truth all became the order of the day. However, those excesses contained the seeds of journalism’s redemption.

    A profession with professional training

    Photo by Daniel X. O’neill on Flickr and used here with Creative Commons license.

    Reporters who recoiled at what the news business had become decided that if journalism was to become respectable, it had to be thought of as a profession. And a profession required professional training.

    The first journalism schools emerged in the first decade of the 20th century at the University of Missouri and Columbia University in New York (the latter founded by Joseph Pulitzer, one of the chief progenitors of yellow journalism.) Journalism schools not only taught the basics of how to report and write a news story; they also inculcated journalists in a set of ethical and professional standards to guide them in their work, including a prohibition on overt partisanship in news coverage that came to be known as “objectivity.”

    Walter Williams, founding dean of Missouri’s journalism school, encapsulated these standards in 1914 in a document he called the Journalist’s Creed, which asserted that public journals are a public trust and the journalist’s task is to serve the public good. The creed also says “accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism” and that “a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.”

    In other words, no room for moon hoaxes. Or fake news.

    Because the First Amendment precludes government regulation of the news media in the United States, compliance with these professional standards was entirely voluntary. No force of law required news organizations to follow them, although almost all of them did.

    Admittedly, this voluntary regime has been imperfect in preventing demonstrably false material from getting through audiences, but it has provided a degree of confidence in the reliability of news coverage that no other country can match.

    Fake news and the concept of “alternative facts” have arisen today largely because people who have not been trained as journalists, or inculcated in journalistic values, are now behaving as journalists. Any fool with a computer can become a publisher, which inevitably leads to foolishness. And the temptation to do whatever is necessary to attract an audience is as strong today as it was for the publisher of the Sun back in 1835.

    A swing back to trust

    But the good news is that although the pendulum may have swung somewhat away from confidence in news credibility, history provides some comfort that it can swing back. Already, we are seeing news organizations partner with Facebook to flag and fact-check questionable material. People who care about facts, and having training in standards, are once again asserting themselves on the public’s behalf.

    So the next time you read about Hillary Clinton operating a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor, don’t despair. People will eventually figure out there aren’t really animals on the moon.

    Rich Shumate is a media historian and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Florida. He is a veteran journalist and former news editor at CNN.

    Tagged: alternative facts fake news history media history the new york sun

    3 responses to “Fake News Isn’t New; History Offers A Way To Fight It”

    1. «… but it has provided a degree of confidence in the reliability of news coverage that no other country can match.» I am not sure whether «it has provided a degree of confidence … no other country can match», Mr Shumate, but it certainly seems to have provided a degree of self-satisfaction to which few could aspire….


    2. Pub123 says:

      The problem today is not only “fake” news but legitimate news that reports – factually – the contents or remarks of a source but fails to explain the underlying weakness of same.
      For example, anyone reading the FBI Unified Crime Report would conclude that violent crime is down. However, it should be explained that the FBI Unified report is neither unified or comprehensive. It only represents about a third, sometimes as much as half, of the country. Enforcement agencies that have a bad year typically do not turn in their stats. Therefore, crime can be up and down at the same time with both sides being able to source their validity but neither side is totally correct.
      The same is true in the area of global warming. Anyone reading the executive summary of the UN IPCC Assessment Report released just prior to the Kyoto COP would conclude that a direct link to global warming and man-made emissions had been established. However, the actual report made no such claim. Several scientists immediately had their names removed from the report after the summary was available for review.
      The list goes on and on.
      Most reporters report factually but the problem is what used to be reliable sources are now infested with partisans that truncate data, clip data sets, use forbidden tests (Bristlecone Pine) or jump to conclusions that their own data cannot support.

      • Chris says:

        It’s not just bad sources. A lot of news outlets themselves push their own bias or agenda. They’ll ignore sources and evidence which runs counter to what they want people to believe.

  • Who We Are

    MediaShift is the premier destination for insight and analysis at the intersection of media and technology. The MediaShift network includes MediaShift, EducationShift, MetricShift and Idea Lab, as well as workshops and weekend hackathons, email newsletters, a weekly podcast and a series of DigitalEd online trainings.

    About MediaShift »
    Contact us »
    Sponsor MediaShift »
    MediaShift Newsletters »

    Follow us on Social Media