“It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November.”
The paragraph above was extracted from a New York Times article entitled “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates.” The four-line admission that the entire premise of the piece—published amidst fervent media promotion of the idea that Russia “hacked” the results of the election—was preceded by two paragraphs that seemingly contradicted it. The first stated that there was a “broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of [then] President-elect Donald J. Trump,” and the second reaffirmed the first.
Facebook first made me aware of the article. The social media site, which the average smartphone user checks 14 times a day, listed the piece as its most popular trending item. My newsfeed was littered with shares, comments, likes and wow-reacts. I scrolled through the unending stream of response to the as-the-title-would-have-you-believe “groundbreaking” New York Times article in disbelief of the recent news. Simultaneously, the lock screen of my phone filled with messages and group texts all pertinent to the article.
My immediate reaction was one of shock. I contemplated the gravity of the situation and became seriously concerned for the future of our nation. Would the soon-to-be President have to resign? Had the integrity of our sacred electoral process been compromised? Was this the end of democracy, as we know it?
In desperate need of a way to calm my nerves, I closed Facebook and opened up a new tab for the sole purpose of browsing Reddit. I began my quest for levity on the /r/mildly_interesting page, but eventually found myself on /r/The_Donald—a page devoted entirely to supporters of Trump. There, I discovered that my anxiety—much like the narrative promoted by the misleading title of the New York Times article— largely was unfounded.
Somewhere in the sea of memes that populated /r/The_Donald, I stumbled upon a link which redirected me to an image containing a screenshot of the third paragraph in the New York Times article. The link was accompanied by the phrase “fake news” in all-caps and boldface.
While typically I could not imagine myself agreeing with people who operate under pseudonyms like “CANTSTOPWONTSTOPMAGA” and “Lord_Kek_69,” I do not know how else to describe the reporting done by Michael S. Schmidt, Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo for the New York Times.
If I had published a piece under the title, “Incoming President Vincent Price Considering Relocation of Duke’s Campus to New Orleans, La.,” only to state somewhere down in my article that it is “not clear” whether Price intends to move Duke’s campus to Louisiana and also “unclear” if Price has even considered relocating Duke from Durham, you would probably call it “fake news” too. At the very least, it is terrible journalism.
As evidenced by the contributors’ reliance on declarations of uncertainty, the piece was entirely conjectured; however, it was not received as such. The combination of a title that confirmed what many wanted to hear, the populace’s generally short attention span and the postponement of relevant information within the article produced the piece’s desired effect. The vast majority of people—myself included—all jumped to the conclusion that Trump was complicit in a Russian manipulation of the election results, despite a substantial lack of evidence. A frenzy of confirmations of this baseless claim arrived almost instantaneously in my hands as they gently cupped a cracked iPhone 5s. However, it took me several hours and an in-depth search of a relatively low-trafficked Reddit page to find the truth.
Perhaps Trump’s promotion of an equally baseless claim that Obama had wiretapped the Trump campaign will result in a formal investigation that will diminish the narrative promoted by the infamous New York Times article as a partisan attack; however, that is unlikely because it requires more analysis than most are willing to afford.
After all, one simply needed to read the article to realize it was “fake news,” but most did not. As a result, our confidence in the electoral process and our confidence in the legitimacy of the Trump presidency have been unjustifiably undermined for the past month-and-a-half because a large percentage of Americans—myself included—believe “fake news.” This is either because they want to, they hate putting in the effort to critically engage with it or a combination of the two.
As much as we would like to hear that Price is considering relocating Duke to New Orleans— especially in the wake of Mardi Gras—and as much as you all detest reading my biweekly column of politically-themed aggravation, it is “not clear” whether Price intends to move Duke’s campus to Louisiana and “unclear” if Price has even considered relocating Duke from Durham.
Jacob Weiss is a Trinity junior. His column, “not jumping to any conclusions” runs on alternate Wednesdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Jacob Weiss is a Trinity senior. His column, "not jumping to any conclusions," runs on alternate Fridays.