Fake News and Online Regulations

simulated tidings and Online RegulationsThe dissemination of bull by dint of with(predicate) intelligence service by online is a little terror to democracy. Should online plat relieve oneselfs in that locationfore be subject to re turn oning chequer? Professional intelligence service media plays an primary(prenominal) role in our democratic societies by shape prohibiteding as apublic watchdogover the concentrations of power, ensuring the account baron of theseinstitutions, and informing us of important occurrences.1 However,fabrication, contrivery and imitationhood substantiate been a pull up stakes of intelligence information media since the prototypal journalists put quill to parchment.2Therefore, statutory laws and regulative bodies aim to ensure intelligence service media isimpartial and accurate. However, journalism today is experiencing fundamentaltransformation due to scientific advancements consequently, the public nowacquires password through dig ital platforms as head as traditional sources. A 2016 survey found that 35% of mountain in the UK now usesocial media to access the intelligence operation, for those under 35 years old, 41% employFacebook and 20% used chirp as a weekly source.3Online platforms have drawd more discussion sources to larger audiences, tho thishas also opened floodgates of inaccurate information pouring into our news feeds by deskilledjournalists. The phenomena of citizen journalism and we media haveaccelerated the pattern of random and instantaneous digital dissemination ofinformation.4These activities have contributed to blurring the lines between truthand absurdhood, and created spurt news, which puts professional journalism under recommendure. On 30th January 2017, The Culture, Media andSport Committee launched an question into fictitious news and called for submissions to be madesuggesting slipway torespond to the phenomenon of bull through news. variant restrictive bodies, and in stitutionsincluding the LSE Media policyproject have shed whatsoever start out on this legislateic.5 simulated news bay window be best soundless as the misinformation (the inadvertent sharing of falseinformation) and disinformation (the deliberate creation and sharing ofinformation known to be false).6These types of content argon being created as a result of poor journalism,parody, provocation, passion, partisanship, profit, political influence andpropaganda.7 They be produce on news sites and listed bydigital intermediaries (groups consisting of news aggregators, social networks, reckon engines, and digital application stores) 8 causing bogus news to spread crosswise the globe. The concerning issue is the channels through which most people gain theirnews from argon currently subject to no statutory laws, editorialguidelines nor convention by organizations much(prenominal) as the Independent urge on Standards Organisation (IPSO).However, there is a wealth of evidencesu pporting the scale, dissemination and effects of fix news. The debate hasgained signifi bottom of the inningt prominence since the 2016 US presidential elections. statutory law of digital intermediaries A YouGov surveycommissioned by Channel 4 found that solitary(prenominal) 4% of people were able to correctly strike interpolate news.9This inability is concerning as m all people, especially the young, acquireknowledge, and form opinions, by what they see and read on the net profit. Statutory ordinance would so be themost direct response to the challenge of falsify news10under this approach digital intermediaries would be treated as publishers counterbalanceif they have non played an active part in the commissioning or presentation of much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) content.11 Such an approach whitethorn be necessary as a study analysing how socialmedia stub cleanse citizens knowledge of political preferences proved thatthere is a remarkable ability f or social media to forecast election results.12This proved to be the case during the EU referendum, where 7% of those thatvoted for Brexit regretted their choice later(prenominal). 13 give-and-take reporters found voters claiming they voted leave because they believedlies or false promises14it is most likely that the sources of these false statements were fromunregulated online platforms. Therefore, enforcing legislation on digital intermediaries would hold theseplatforms directly accountable, ensuring they take their civic duty seriously.15 dupery news is also a concern on peep where Twitter bombs(the act of sending unsolicited replies to specific exploiters via Twitter in orderto come in them to pay attention to ones cause), ar being launched within days ofthe elections.16 contempt Twitters attempts to shut them down it has been ineffective as these exploiters create hedge accounts, sham replies and fake grassroots movements.17These tweets target deskilled-journalists onlin e, laborurising some to traintheir visualizes. body politic is threatened if peoples views be influenced by falsestatements in the guise of news. Aside from political motivations, thespreading of fake news was also noned by users retweeting fake images of theHurri messe light-haired disaster18,and pictures of the of Osama Bin dilutes dead body.19Such action usually goes un noniced unless soulfulness has detected and reported theissue. This response is different for publishersbecause they are subject to the IPSO, or a standardized body. Journalists employedby regulated publishers are mandatory to uphold the values enforced in theEditors code of practice. This aims to ensure trueness of information and astandard of professional journalism is maintained20 . However, digitalintermediaries are not held accountable by some(prenominal) body, like the IPSO, even thoughthey have a large audience that is affected by make stories. Therefore,it is crucial that these organisations ta ke some responsibility in resolvingthis issue.21Withoutimplementing any strict regulatory initiatives such incidences would occurdaily and remain unquestioned, release users to believe false information. Statutory mandate would therefore fill the snapin the law, bringing clarity and holding digitalintermediaries responsible for their part in disseminating fake news. There is no doubt that intermediaries play a dominant role in the internationalpublic sphere, but mayhap we need to address the question of whether we shouldcontinue to consider them as spotless intermediaries.22 Unlike news appendrs, intermediaries have noinvestment in journalism and are therefore more likely to drip out news. This limits users soul of the world, as they are insulatedfrom opposing views. The take a chance is that these filter bubbles (restrictions of ausers perspective) pull up stakes promote misperceptions byhiding the truth,23 which supports the economic models ofintermediaries because digit al programmatic advertising follows users throughtheir clicks, shares and likes.24 By learning from the pastactions of a user, news feeds impart moreover show similar material in their nextuse. Requiring digital intermediaries to transfer theirapproach by bursting this filter bubble would not be in their commercialinterests, as the bubbles content is what keeps users engaged. Statutory standard would therefore enforce strict rules on how intermediaries shouldenforce mechanisms to detect and filter fake news instead of opposing views. Moreover, ensuringimpartiality and verity is important especially during election time. A BuzzFeed advanceds abridgment found that top fake election news stories generated more totalengagement on Facebook than top election stories from 19 major(ip) news outletscombined.25This instability illustrates the signifi pratt role digital intermediaries play intodays society, and therefore it is particularly concerning if their newscontent is fake. Ifnewsp apers and broadcasting media organisations are make to follow strictguidelines on impartiality26 and accuracy, then whyshould it be any different for online platforms? For example, Section 319 of the communication theory interpret 2003 requires TV and radio broadcasters to approve with thestandard objectives make by Ofcom. This includes, reporting with due accuracyand not misleading27 furthermore, Parliamentrequires Ofcom to develop rules with respect to broadcasters wider editorialcoverage of elections.28 ex flipable prescripts 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 enactment of onlinenews providersThe dissemination of fake news by online newsproviders has proven to be a great concern as nameless individuals are inventing fake news for the purpose of generating clicks andearning revenue.29 Such airhas been identify 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 mandate is placed on digital intermediaries, then the samecould be through for online news providers, as the same news from online newsproviders ordain be shared via digital intermediaries. This was proven tobe the case as mixed US sites claimed to be exposing Russian propaganda,31was shared via otherwise online platforms which influenced voter behavior in the USelections.32Examples such as as this suggest misleading, sloped propaganda is also partof the fake news phenomenon.33 It is thereforeimportant to pock statutory regulations for both, as this type of de-skilled citizen journalism is athreat to democracy especially because peoples views are being influenced by non-white and inaccurate information.34Furthermore,news outlets that only have an online presence,such as AOL news, Vice, and Huffington Post, are not subje ct 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 protection 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 change under the Crime and Courts Act for defamation or otherrelevant claims39therefore, it would be in the interests of online publishers to collaborate arecognized regulatory body. Interestingly, Wikipedia recently bannedDaily situation 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 another 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 credibility of a publisherthey regulate. Such failures generate an free fall 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, t hree 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. The implementation of statutory regulation, combined with independent regulatorybodies, should be protracted to intermediaries and online news providers. Such aframework is an essential stepping stone towards a regulatory regime that isentirely fit for purpose in this new era. The contradict 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 according to methods theybelieve are most effective. dirt Zuckerberg, althoughfirst dismissing the idea that fake news influenced the US election, later adj udge the role of social media in helping promote fake news, andproposed shipway in which Facebook could help resolve this issue.46 Actions include taking anapproachthat will focus less on banning misinformation, and more on ascendadditional perspectives and information, including that fact checkers disputean items accuracy.47Other waysFacebook could reduce fake news without resorting to censoring includenudging, crowdsourcing and reducing the algorithmic bias.48Nudging involves monitoring what users are writing in anew deport 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 to decrease filter bubbles that create an echo chamber, where similar ideasbounce roughly endlessly which is a job when the echo chamber blocks out disciplinary or fact-checking information.49Although, some digital interme diaries have already taken steps to tackle the issue of fake news, it would be ineffective to give them sole 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 support by theTrust Project, which suggests that algorithms alone will struggle to root outfake news, unless they can quantify 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-driven corrections will not, on their own, address these problems. Additionally, judgments of thiskind need to be cautiously reviewed hence, an independent body should beestablished to perform this role. This approach will ensure tech platformsmaintain transparency in the work they melt down 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 effectively. This view is supported by Dr Tambini from the LSE, who states that the unprecedentednumber 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 world(prenominal)regulatory body that could operate across borders. Taking such an approachwould not hinder the freedom of expression nor create restrictive frameworks,as a globose collective regulatory body would find common ground, respecting therights of all democratic inst itutions, 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 syndicatewhere there may be an argument for statutory regulation is the house ofdeliberate falsehood with intent to compromise national security.55However, such a high standard will be difficult to escort 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 oecumenic criteria of what constitutes as fakenews. Regardless of the flaws in a global regulatory body, it is likely to bethe mo st effective solution for a global problem. A further concern that must beaddressed is the ill-treatmentof 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 round from a Golden Triangle into a Bermuda Triangle. 57 Representativesfrom the White hearthstone and President Trump have used this term on manyoccasions 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 system of macrophages to vote for thegovernments bill triggering Article 50,59were later found to be false. Nonetheless journalists claim to have correctly see quotes from politicians, but due to the lack of clarity, andchanging views of the politicians, their journalism was labelled as fakenews.60T his 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, hitherto 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 s afeguard 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 still 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 Participation in a Transformed News Landscape (Routledge,2013), pp 15Byrne Andrew, Macedonias fake news industry sets sights on Europe(www.ft.com,16 declination 2016) accessed 11 April 2017Ceron Andrea, Curini Luigi, M Iacus Stefano, Porro Giuseppe, 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 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 entangled than fakenews (T he Conversation, 17 November 2016) accessed 11 April 2017Gilad Lotan, Fake News Is Not the Only Problem (www.points.datasocietynet,23 November 2016) accessed 11 April 2017Goldsbie J, Craig Silverman, the man who loose the fake-newsracquet 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) accessed 11 April 2017Goodman Emma, How hasmedia policy responded to fake news? (LSE Media constitution 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 22nd global conference on man 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, IMPRESS entranceway on Fake News (I mpress press, 10th establish 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Ipso, Editors cipher 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 shitlist? (Fair.org, 1 December 2016) accessed 9 April 2017KCL Centre for the study of media, communication and power,Submission to Consultation on the Leveson question and its ImplementationDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport and the home office Office (Kcl.ac.uk,2016) accessed 11 April 2017KCL Centre for the study ofmedia, communication and power, Submission to interrogatory into Fake News (Kcl.ac.uk, 16February 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Lord Justice Leveson, An interrogatory 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, 6 abut 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Mcnair Brian, Journalism and Democracy a millennial visit 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 CMS parliamentary select committee inquiry on fake news (www.nuj.org.uk,February 2017) accessed 11 April 2017Nelson Steven, Publications Called Russian-Propaganda Distributors carry Suing Anonymous Experts, (US News, 29 November 2016) accessed 9 April 2017Newman Nic, H.Dutton William, Blank Grant, hearty Media and theNews Implications for the Press and Society (OUP 2014) pp.139NMA, CMS strike Committee Fake NewsInquiry NMA retort (News.media.uk.org, 30 March 2017) accessed 11 April 2017NMA, CMS give Committee Fake NewsInquiry NMA Response (Newsmediaukorg, 30 March) accessed 11 April 2017Ofcom, Review 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 communicationsassociation (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 puzzle an AI (Theguardiancom, 31 January 2017) accessed 13 April 2017Sievers Bruce andSchneider Patrice, The Civic Media Crisis and What Philanthropy Can Do (SSIR)(Stanford hearty Innovation Review 8 March 2017) accessed 8 April 2017Singer-Vine, around 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 constitution 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) accessed 11April 2017UK Parliament, Social Media and Access to Information (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 chic Michael, News Plurality and Digital Intermediaries EuropeanJournalism lookout- EJO (European Journalism Observatory EJO, 28 August2012) accessed 13 Ap ril 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 varlet , (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 regret 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 Twi tter 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 Select 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, R eview 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-News, 29 November 2016), accessed9/April/201732Adam Johnson, Why are media outlets still citing discredited Fake News Blacklist?, (FAIR,1 December 2016)