Fake news is an oxymoron

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

According to veteran journalist Ellen Tordesillas of VERA Files: “If it is news, it isn’t fake. And if it’s false then, it cannot be news.” The term has been hijacked by politicians to discredit critical coverage. They use it not to clarify truth, but to undermine independent media and disparage political rivals. It has become a propaganda tool—allowing powerful actors to distort the free flow of knowledge in the public sphere. This is a big reason why disinformation continues to pollute the country’s information ecosystem.

Interestingly, the ASEAN Guideline on Management of Government Information in Combating Fake News and Disinformation in the Media recognizes both terms, hinting at a more nuanced approach. But this dual usage has only deepened the confusion in the Philippines. Instead of treating “fake news” and “disinformation” as distinct concepts, many Filipinos have blurred them together, creating a legal mess that weakens the fight against real disinformation operators.

The term “fake news” has indeed become ubiquitous, but it first entered our legal dictionary via a privilege speech delivered by Senator Leila de Lima on January 24, 2017, entitled, Zombie Apocalypse: The Rise of Fake News and the Death Knell for Philippine Democracy. This oration is widely regarded as the first formal, on-record denunciation of “fake news” and organized disinformation in the halls of our legislature. Not surprisingly, lawmakers have fully embraced the term “fake news”.

Search “disinformation” on the Senate website and you will get nothing. Do the same on the House of Representatives website, you will get a few resolutions but no bills. But type “fake news” and you will get hits on both sites. Unfortunately, some legislators have drafted bills using this term—despite repeated warnings from journalists and media experts that this is inappropriate. When a concept is this malleable, turning it into a legal category is reckless and perilous.

The definition of “fake news” in the proposed bills departs from academic and journalistic definitions of disinformation. The bills’ definition of “fake news” is overly broad. A vague law is always a weapon against critics, journalists, and ordinary citizens exercising their right to free expression. We have been down this road before—whether through archaic libel laws or the recent anti-terror law. History tells us who usually bears the brunt of such laws: dissenters, not propagandists.

Of course, the real target of regulation should be systemic, coordinated, and malicious disinformation that endangers democratic institutions and social cohesion. Slander and libel are crimes against honour, and obscenity is a crime against decency. Disinformation should be framed as an offense against the integrity of democratic discourse. But to do that, the definition has to be precise. It must distinguish malicious campaigns from mere error, criticism, or unpopular opinions. The current bills are utter failures in this regard.

Criminalizing “fake news” without a solid definition is not a solution. It will not stop organized disinformation campaigns. But it will give politicians more leverage to harass critics and media. We have seen how vague concepts like “cyberlibel” and “unlawful online speech” have been used to intimidate journalists. If “fake news” becomes part of the criminal code, then it will be another blunt instrument against speech, not a sword against disinformation networks.

The law must aim at coordinated inauthentic behavior, algorithmic amplification of falsehoods, and state-sponsored propaganda designed to manipulate public opinion. That requires lawmaking expertise and a clear conception of what exactly we are criminalizing. Lazy sloganeering will not just cut it. Until lawmakers abandon the term “fake news” and embrace an evidence-based approach to defining disinformation, any attempt to legislate against it will be dangerous, and ultimately counterproductive.