Fake News and Online Regulations

spirt intelligence and Online RegulationsThe dissemination of histrion intelligence service show by online is a threat to democracy. Should online platforms then be subject to regulative control? Professionaljournalism plays an important role in our democratic societies by acting as apublic watchdogover the concentrations of power, ensuring the accountability of theseinstitutions, and informing us of important occurrences.1 However,fabrication, finaglery and falsehood beat been apart of journalism since the first journalists launch apart quill to parchment.2Therefore, statutory laws and restrictive bodies aim to ensure journalism isimpartial and accurate. However, journalism today is experiencing fundamentaltransformation due to technological advancements consequently, the public directlyacquires news through with(predicate) digital platforms as well as traditional sources. A 2016 survey effect that 35% of people in the UK now accustomsocial media to access the news, for those under 35 years old, 41% usedFacebook and 20% used peep as a weekly source.3Online platforms have created more(prenominal) news sources to larger audiences, but thishas in like manner opened floodgates of inaccurate data pouring into our news feeds by deskilledjournalists. The phenomena of citizen journalism and we media haveaccelerated the pattern of haphazard and instantaneous digital dissemination of breeding.4These activities have contributed to blurring the lines between truthand falsehood, and created imitation news, which puts professional journalism under call forthure. On 30th January 2017, The Culture, Media andSport Committee launched an head into talk through ones hat news and called for submissions to be madesuggesting carriages torespond to the phenomenon of hedge news. Various regulatory bodies, and institutionsincluding the LSE Media indemnityproject have shed some ignition on this topic.5 humbug news gage be best understood as the mis study (th e inadvertent sharing of falseinformation) and disinformation (the metrical creation and sharing ofinformation known to be false).6These types of content are being created as a result of poor journalism,parody, provocation, passion, partisanship, profit, political influence andpropaganda.7 They are published on news sites and listed bydigital intermediaries (groups consisting of news aggregators, social networks,search engines, and digital use stores) 8 causing fudge news to spread across the globe. The concerning issue is the channels through which virtually people gain theirnews from are currently subject to no statutory laws, editorialguidelines nor regulation by organizations such as the autonomous arouse examples Organisation (IPSO).However, there is a wealth of evidencesupporting the scale, dissemination and effects of fake news. The debate hasgained signifi weedt prominence since the 2016 US presidential selections. Statutoryregulation of digital intermediaries A You Gov surveycommissi whizzd by Channel 4 found that still 4% of people were able to correctlyidentify fake news.9This inability is concerning as m any people, especially the young, acquireknowledge, and form opinions, by what they see and read on the internet. Statutory regulation would therefore be themost direct response to the challenge of fake news10under this approach digital intermediaries would be treated as publishers evenif they have not played an active part in the commissioning or presentation ofsuch content.11 such(prenominal) an approach may be necessary as a study analysing how socialmedia can improve citizens knowledge of political preferences proved thatthere is a remarkable ability for social media to forecast election results.12This proved to be the consequence during the EU referendum, where 7% of those thatvoted for Brexit regretted their choice later. 13 give-and-take reporters found voters claiming they voted leave because they turn overdlies or false promise s14it is most likely that the sources of these false statements were fromunregulated online platforms. Therefore, enforcing legislation on digital intermediaries would hold theseplatforms directly responsible, ensuring they take their civic duty seriously.15 fraud news is also a concern on chirrup where Twitter bombs(the act of sending unsolicited replies to specific users via Twitter in orderto get them to pay attention to ones cause), are being launched within years ofthe elections.16Despite Twitters attempts to shut them down it has been ineffective as theseusers create fake accounts, fake replies and fake grassroots movements.17These tweets target deskilled-journalists online, pressurising some to gibetheir views. Democracy is threatened if peoples views are influenced by falsestatements in the guise of news. Aside from political motivations, thespreading of fake news was also noted by users retweeting fake images of theHurricane Sandy disaster18,and pictures of the of Osama Bin Ladens dead body.19Such action usually goes unnoticed unless someone has detected and describe theissue. This response is different for newspapersbecause they are subject to the IPSO, or a similar body. Journalists employedby regulated publishers are required to uphold the values oblige in theEditors code of practice. This aims to ensure accuracy of information and astandard of professional journalism is maintained20 . However, digitalintermediaries are not held accountable by any body, like the IPSO, even thoughthey have a large audience that is affected by fabricated stories. Therefore,it is crucial that these organisations take some responsibility in resolvingthis issue.21Withoutimplementing any strict regulatory initiatives such incidences would occurdaily and remain unquestioned, leaving users to believe false information. Statutory regulation would therefore engross the gapin the law, bringing clarity and holding digitalintermediaries responsible for their part in disse minating fake news. There is no doubt that intermediaries play a dominant role in the globalpublic sphere, but perhaps we need to address the question of whether we shouldcontinue to consider them as mere intermediaries.22 remote news providers, intermediaries have noinvestment in journalism and are therefore more likely to filter out news. This limits users understanding of the world, as they are insulatedfrom opposing views. The guess is that these filter duplicationvasates (restrictions of ausers perspective) leave behind shape up misperceptions byhiding the truth,23 which supports the economic models ofintermediaries because digital programmatic advertising observes users throughtheir clicks, shares and likes.24 By learning from the goneactions of a user, news feeds will only show similar material in their nextuse. Requiring digital intermediaries to change theirapproach by bursting this filter bubble would not be in their commercialinterests, as the bubbles content is w hat keeps users engaged. Statutoryregulation would therefore use strict rules on how intermediaries shouldenforce tools to detect and filter fake news instead of opposing views. Moreover, ensuringimpartiality and accuracy is important especially during election time. A BuzzFeed Newsanalysis found that top fake election news stories generated more totalengagement on Facebook than top election stories from 19 major news outletscombined.25This derangement illustrates the significant role digital intermediaries play intodays society, and therefore it is particularly concerning if their newscontent is fake. Ifnewspapers and broadcasting media organisations are obliged to follow strictguidelines on impartiality26 and accuracy, then whyshould it be any different for online platforms? For example, Section 319 of theCommunications Act 2003 requires TV and radio broadcasters to comply with thestandard objectives set by Ofcom. This includes, reporting with due accuracyand not misleading27 f urthermore, Parliamentrequires Ofcom to develop rules with respect to broadcasters wider editorialcoverage of elections.28 Similar regulations onintermediaries would ensure information is not personalized to a userspreferences, thus maintaining impartiality and accuracy, whilst avoiding therisk of disseminating fake news to users. Statutory regulation of onlinenews providersThe dissemination of fake news by online newsproviders has proven to be a great concern as anonymous individuals are inventing fake news for the purpose of generating clicks andearning revenue.29 Such behaviorhas been identified in Macedonia, where teenagers were found to be making moneyby creating fake news on US presidential candidates and promoting it via socialmedia.30 If statutory regulation is placed on digital intermediaries, then the samecould be done for online news providers, as the same news from online newsproviders will be shared via digital intermediaries. This was proven tobe the case as various US sites claimed to be exposing Russian propaganda,31was shared via other online platforms which influenced voter behavior in the USelections.32Examples such as as this suggest misleading, biased propaganda is also partof the fake news phenomenon.33 It is thereforeimportant to set statutory regulations for both, as this type of de-skilled citizen journalism is athreat to democracy especially because peoples views are being influenced bybiased and inaccurate information.34Furthermore,news outlets that only have an online presence,such as AOL news, Vice, and Huffington Post, are not subject to any regulatorycontrols as they are not members of regulatory bodies like IPSO35even though they are subject tosome statutory control such as defamation,36copyright37and data cheerion laws,38control is not the same as the additional regulatory standards most UK press(with a physical and online presence) comply to. Without belonging to anyrecognised regulator, publishers may have to payexemplary da mages under the crime and Courts Act for defamation or otherrelevant claims39therefore, it would be in the interests of online publishers to join arecognized regulatory body. Interestingly, Wikipedia recently bannedDaily stake as an unreliable source and excluded it as a source of reference.Wikipedia claimed the newspaper to have a reputation for poor fact checkingand sensationalism.40These claimed characteristics are other concern for UK journalism, as IPSOregulates Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers Limited) 41yet they are still being labelled as an unreliable source. This indicates theineffectiveness of IPSO as it failed to ensure the credibleness of a publisherthey regulate. Such failures generate an inclination towards statutoryregulation of online news providers as regulatory bodies are not enough, toensure that newspapers report accurately and without exaggeration. Not only dosuch flaws lose the publics trust in professional journalism but they alsocreate a society that is vulnerable to fake news. There is also no evidence to suggest that the levels of accuracy are rising or that the self-regulatorybodies set up by the major publishers, and IPSO, are having any identifiablepositive effect.42Hence, it may be necessary to set up statutory regulations of online newsproviders which will create a more direct and stringent approach to tacklingfake news. The Leveson Report43suggested that such statutory regulation would be necessary to underpin theprocess of recognition, and reinforce the importance of statutes guaranteeingpress freedom.44However, three years on from the publication of the Leveson Report, thelandscape of press regulation is still fragmented and confused,45and it may therefore be necessary to re-consider these suggestions. Theimplementation of statutory regulation, combined with independent regulatorybodies, should be extended to intermediaries and online news providers. Such aframework is an essential stepping stone towards a regulatory reg ime that is entirely fit for purpose in this new era. The negative issues with thisinitiative would include costs, and whether a consensus by major publishers andonline platforms can be formed. Self-regulationby digital intermediariesAn alternative to statutory regulations would be to enforcea self-regulatory system for digital intermediaries which would allow them tohave significant control in filtering fake news coincideing to methods theybelieve are most effective. Mark Zuckerberg, althoughfirst dismissing the idea that fake news influenced the US election, lateracknowledged the role of social media in helping promote fake news, andproposed ways in which Facebook could help resolve this issue.46 Actions include taking anapproachthat will focus less on banning misinformation, and more on surfacingadditional perspectives and information, including that fact checkers disputean items accuracy.47Other waysFacebook could reduce fake news without resorting tocensorship includenudging, crowdsourcing and reducing the algorithmic bias.48Nudging involves monitoring what users are writing in anew post if the content includes words they may regret posting, it notifiesthem. Crowdsourcing allows users to evaluate news sources by indicating ratings. Lastly, the mostimportant solution is to reduce the algorithmic bias. This involves trying todiminish filter bubbles that create an echo chamber, where similar ideasbounce around endlessly which is a problem when the echo chamber blocks outcorrective or fact-checking information.49Although, some digital intermediaries have already takensteps to rein the issue of fake news, it would be ineffective to give themsole responsibility. More useful would be to establisha governance mechanism, such as an independent board, that could check whetherthe algorithms accord with acceptable principles.50 This view is supported by theTrust Project, which suggests that algorithms alone will struggle to root outfake news, unless they can quanti fy indicators of trust elements, which canhelp set a kitemark for trustworthiness.51This suggestion includes being able to distinguish the intentions behind thenews, and whether it is genuine, or inaccurate reporting. Therefore, remedies based solely on technological fixes or market-drivencorrections will not, on their own, address these problems. Additionally, judgments of thiskind need to be carefully reviewed hence, an independent body should beestablished to perform this role. This approach will ensure tech platformsmaintain transparency in the work they carry out to tackle this public issue.Firstly, thereis no guarantee that only one countrys statutory regulation would work astechnologic advancements allow users to create and access online news sitesfrom anywhere in the world. If users can create fake news, they can create fakeidentities, which raises concerns for verification,accountability and accuracy52 therefore,alternative solutions may be needed to tackle the problem effe ctively. This view is supported by Dr Tambini from the LSE, who states that the extraordinarynumber of fake news sites is a huge and far-reaching problem that cannotbe dealt within existing legal categories.53 Therefore, apossible solution to tackling fake news would be to establish a globalregulatory body that could consort across borders. Taking such an approachwould not hinder the freedom of conceptualisation nor create restrictive frameworks,as a global collective regulatory body would find common ground, respecting therights of all democratic institutions, and ensure that accuracy of informationcould be maintained across online platforms. Whereas, it would be difficult toestablish statutory regulation without hindering the right to freedom ofspeech, whichmust be balanced against the risk of giving states excessive powers over theexpression rights of individuals and organizations creating such content.54The only categorywhere there may be an argument for statutory regulation is the category ofdeliberate falsehood with intent to compromise topic security.55However, such a high standard will be difficult to meet and not tackle thephenomena of fake news. Instead a global regulatory system is more likely to create aneffective solution that can monitor all types of fake news. However, the majorconcern with creating a global regulatory body is forming a consensus toestablish one, and deciding some universal criteria of what constitutes as fakenews. Regardless of the flaws in a global regulatory body, it is likely to bethe most effective solution for a global problem. A further concern that must beaddressed is the misuseof the term fake news. The term fake news has been used by public figuresand politicians to justify politically motivated attacks on journalists andpress freedom.56 Whatwas once considered a symbiotic relationship between politics, media and thepublic is turning from a Golden Triangle into a Bermuda Triangle. 57 Representativesfrom the White support and President Trump have used this term on numerousoccasions to accuse media reports that oppose Trumps views.58Moreover, in the UK, headlines such as, we invested 10bn extra in the NHSlast year, and claims that, Corbyn would order Labour MPs to vote for thegovernments bill triggering Article 50,59were later found to be false. Nonetheless journalists claim to have correctlyinterpreted quotes from politicians, but due to the lack of clarity, andchanging views of the politicians, their journalism was labelled as fakenews.60This labelling is no fault of their own, but it definitely damages theirreputation as credible sources in the eyes of the public. A global regulatorybody could establish mechanism which safeguard online journalists andindividuals that may have complaints to online content. These mechanisms would be similar to the way the press iscurrently protected by regulatory bodies such as IPSO, Ofcom, and AdvertisingStandard Authority which provide all individuals with a complaints procedure toresolve disputes.61For online news sites created by individuals, however such protections andremedies are not available. In these cases, the only way the news sites couldsafeguard themselves from possible accusations of creating false news would beto become members of such bodies. A global regulatory body could protect andhold online journalists accountable for their reports, and scrutinise claims bypoliticians in the public eye. This protection could be extended to theexistent online press, to further safeguard them from accusations and ensureaccuracy. Traditionalgatekeeping mechanisms, such as national statutory laws and self-regulatory frameworks, canensure online platforms are subject to similar frameworks as newspapers andthe broadcasting media are, but this approach would ultimately fail because the internet has no borders- allowing online platforms to operateglobally, across multiple jurisdictions.62 Fake news created in adifferent country, would stil l be accessible and impact users from othercountries, (as proven to be the case with Macedonia). Therefore, the issue offake news can only be tackled effectively by all democratic institutions throughthe creation of a global regulatory body. BibliographyAllen Nick and Lawler David, Donald Trump says fake media is enemyof the people they have no sources, none (The Telegraph, 24 February 2017)accessed 13 April 2017BBC, Donald Trump aide accuses BBC of fake news (BBC News, 17February 2017) accessed 13 April 2017BBC, Fake news How can African media deal with the problem? (BBC News, 16February 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Bfi, Regulation and Censorship (Bfi.org.uk, 2014) accessed 11 April 2017Broersma M.J andPeters Chris, Rethinking news mediaTrust and enfolding in a Transformed News Landscape (Routledge,2013), pp 15Byrne Andrew, Macedonias fake news industry sets sights on Europe(www.ft.com,16 December 2016) accessed 11 April 2017Ceron Andrea, Curini Luigi, M Iacus Stefano, Porro Giu seppe, Everytweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledgeof citizens political preferences with an application to Italy and France 4April 2013 16(2) New Media & Society, pp 340-358Dearden Lizzie, Brexit research suggests 12 one million million million Leave votersregret their choice in reversal that could change result (The Independent,1 July 2016) accessed 13 April 2017Fenton Natalie, New Media,Old News, (Sage Publications Ltd, 2009) pp.10Garrett R.Kelly, Facebooks problem is more complicated than fakenews (The Conversation, 17 November 2016) accessed 11 April 2017Gilad Lotan, Fake News Is Not the lone(prenominal) Problem (www.points.datasocietynet,23 November 2016) accessed 11 April 2017Goldsbie J, Craig Silverman, the man who exposed the fake-newsracket in 2016 (NOW Magazine, 22 December 2016) accessed 11 April 2017Goodfellow Jonathan, Only 4% of people can distinguish fake newsfrom truth, Channel 4 study finds (The Drum, 6 February 2017) access ed 11 April 2017Goodman Emma, How hasmedia policy responded to fake news? (LSE Media Policy Project, 7 February2017) accessed 11 April 2017GuptaAditi, Lamba Hemank, KumaraguruPonnurangam, Joshi Anupam, Faking Sandy characterizing and identifying fake images on Twitterduring Hurricane Sandy 2013 In Proceedings of the 22ndInternational league on World wide web, WWW 13, pp 729-7637Heawood Jonathan, Independentand effective? The post-Leveson framework for press regulation 2015 7(2)Journal of Media Law pp 130-144Impress, IMPRESSSubmission on Fake News (Impress press, 10th March 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Ipso, Editors Code of Practice (The Independent Press Standards Organization,accessed 10 April 2017Ipso, UK Regulated publications(Ipso.co.uk)accessed 13 April 2017Jackson Jasper, Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as unreliable source (Guardian.com,8 Feb 2017) accessed 13 April 2017Johnson Adam, Fairness andAccuracy in reporting (Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited FakeNews Black list? (Fair.org, 1 December 2016) accessed 9 April 2017KCL Centre for the study of media, communication and power,Submission to Consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its ImplementationDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office (Kcl.ac.uk,2016) accessed 11 April 2017KCL Centre for the study ofmedia, communication and power, Submission to Inquiry into Fake News (Kcl.ac.uk, 16February 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Lord Justice Leveson, AnInquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press (www.gov.uk,2012) accessed 16 April 2017Mcnair Brian, Fake news a users guide (The Conversation, 6March 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Mcnair Brian, Journalism and Democracy a millennial audit 20001(2) Journalism Studies pp 207Metaxas T. Panagiotis and Eni Mustafaraj, Manipulation of social media affects perceptions of candidatesand compromises decision-making 26 Oct 2012 338 (6106) Social Media and theElections pp 472-473National Union of Journalists, NUJsubmission to the CM S parliamentary select committee inquiry on fake news (www.nuj.org.uk,February 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Nelson Steven, Publications Called Russian-Propaganda Distributorsensure Suing Anonymous Experts, (US News, 29 November 2016) accessed 9 April 2017Newman Nic, H.Dutton William, Blank Grant, Social Media and theNews Implications for the Press and Society (OUP 2014) pp.139NMA, CMS Select Committee Fake NewsInquiry NMA Response (News.media.uk.org, 30 March 2017) accessed 11 April 2017NMA, CMS Select Committee Fake NewsInquiry NMA Response (Newsmediaukorg, 30 March) accessed 11 April 2017Ofcom, refreshen of Ofcom list ofmajor political parties for elections (Ofcom.org.uk, 16 March 2015) accessed 12 April 2017PA, Can the law do anything tostop fake news? (Aol.co.uk,12 Dec 2016) accessed11 April 2017Public relations and communications knowledge (PRCA), PRCA response to the CMS Committees Fake News Inquiry (Prca.org.uk,6 March 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Robbins Martin, Fake news and fact-checking Trump is demonstratinghow to outsmart an AI (Theguardiancom, 31 January 2017) accessed 13 April 2017Sievers Bruce andSchneider Patrice, The Civic Media Crisis and What Philanthropy Can Do (SSIR)(Stanford Social Innovation Review 8 March 2017) accessed 8 April 2017Singer-Vine, Most Americans Who See Fake News Believe It (BuzzFeed News, 7th December 2016) accessed 13 April 2017Stromer-galley Jeremy, Three ways Facebook could reduce fake newswithout resorting to censorship (The Conversation, 2 December 2016) accessed 13 April 2017Tambini Damian, Fake News Public Policy Responses, LSEMedia Policy Project Series, (2017) pp13-15The Trust Project Org, (thetrustproject.org,2016) accessed13 April 2017Thompson Clive, Why Facebook and Twitter have a civic duty toprotect us from fake news (WIRED UK, 24 February 2017) accessed 11 April 2017UK Parliament, Select Committee on Communications Corrected oralevidence Children and the Internet (Dataparliamentuk, 22 November 2016) acc essed 11April 2017UK Parliament, Social Media and Access to data (UK Parliament,Jan 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Wahl-Jorgensen Karin, HintzArne, Dencik Lina, Bennett Lucy, Journalism,citizenship and surveillance 2017 5(3) Digital Journalism pp 256-261Wardle Claire, Fake news Its complicated, (First Draft News, 16February 2017) accessed 9 April 2017 novel Michael, News Plurality and Digital Intermediaries EuropeanJournalism Observatory- EJO (European Journalism Observatory EJO, 28 August2012) accessed 13 April 2017Zuckerberg Mark, Building Global Community (Facebook.com,16 February 2017) accessed 11 April 20171 Wahl-Jorgensenet al, Journalism, citizenship and surveillance2017 5(3) Digital Journalism pp.256-2612 Brian Mcnair, Fake news a users guide (The-Conversation, 6 March 2017) accessed11/April/20173 UK Parliament, Social Media and Access toInformation (UK-Parliament, Jan 2017) accessed11/April/20174 Siervers and Schneider, The CivicMedia Crisis and What Philanthropy Can Do ( StanfordSocial Innovation Review, 8 March 2017) accessed8/April/20175 EmmaGoodman, How has media policy responded to fake news? (LSE-Media-Policy-Project, 7 February 2017), accessed11/April/20176 Claire Wardle, Fake news Its complicated, (First Draft News, 16 February 2017),accessed9/April/20177 Ibid 8 Michael Wise, News Plurality and DigitalIntermediaries-EJO (European JournalismObservatory-EJO, 28 August 2012), accessed13/April/20179 JessicaGoodfellow, Only 4% of people can distinguish fake news from truth, Channel 4study finds (The Drum, 6 February 2017), accessed online 11/April/201710 Impress,IMPRESS Submission on Fake News Page , (Impress press, 10th March2017) accessed 11/April/201711 Ibid12 Ceron et al, Every tweet counts? How sentimentanalysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens politicalpreferences with an application to Italy and France 4 April 2013 16(2) New Media & Society, pp.340 35813 Lizzie Dearden, Brexit research suggests 12 millionLeave voters r egret their choice in reversal that could change result (TheIndependent, 1 July 2016) accessed 13/April/201714 Ibid15 Clive Thompson, Why Facebook and Twitter have acivic duty to protect us from fake news, (WIREDUK, 24 February 2017), accessed11/April/201716 Metaxas et al, Manipulationof social media affects perceptions of candidates and compromisesdecision-making 26 Oct 2012 338(6106) Social Media and the Electionspp.472-47317 Ibid18 Gupta etal, Faking Sandy characterizing andidentifying fake images on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy 2013 In Proceedings of the 22nd Internationalconference on WWW 13, pp.729-763719 Newman et al, Social Media and the NewsImplications for the Press and Society, (OUP, 2014), pp.13920 Ipso, Editors Code of Practice, (TheIndependent Press Standards Organization), accessed10/April/201721 UK Parliament, Select Committee onCommunications Corrected oral evidence Children and the Internet (Data.parliament.uk,22 November 2016), accessed11/April/201722 NMA, CMS S elect Committee Fake NewsInquiry NMA Response (News.media.uk.org, 30 March 2017), accessed 11/April/201723 R.Kelly Garrett, Facebooks problem is morecomplicated than fake news (TheConversation, 17 November 2016), accessed11/April/201724 Ibid25 BBC, Fake news How can African media deal with theproblem? (BBC News, 16 February 2017), accessed11/April/201726 Brian Mcnair, Journalismand Democracy a millennial audit 2000 1(2) Journalism Studies pp.20727 CommunicationsAct 2003, Section 319(2)(d) and (h)28 Ofcom, Review of Ofcom list of major politicalparties for elections (Ofcom.org.uk, 16 March 2015), accessed12/April/201729 Jonathan Goldsbie, CraigSilverman, the man who exposed the fake-news racket in 2016 (NOW-Magazine, 22 December 2016) accessed 11/April/201730 Andrew Byrne,Macedonias fake news industry sets sights on Europe (www.ft.com, 16 December 2016), accessed11/April/201731 Steven Nelson, Publications Called Russian-PropagandaDistributors Consider Suing Anonymous Experts, (US-New s, 29 November 2016), accessed9/April/201732Adam Johnson, Why are media outlets still citing brush off Fake News Blacklist?, (FAIR,1 December 2016)