 Well, I've read that fake news is one of the words of the year but what I'm curious about really is whether or not there's anything new about fake news. In many ways, no. The term became particularly popular, I think, about a year, a year and a half ago. Initially it was specifically looking at misinformation that was spread online. But of course, you know, propaganda's gone, it goes back years and years. All media has a bias or at least takes a perspective on something and often that can shade into bias, so is that fake or is that not? I think the thing that's changed particularly is that technology and the way that information is shared, specifically on social media has altered the media landscape so much that's intensified the possibility of false stories or particularly partisan stories getting shared. I mean, what is it about social media that makes it a bit more invidious to influence the fake news that perhaps we have with issues such as spin or propaganda which I think would perhaps more comfortable with thinking about how to combat? I expect it to number of things. One, it's the reach, you know, so Facebook has about 2 billion users now. 70 years ago that was the entire population of the world. It's not centralized, you know. Anyone can put up their own websites. It's all these sorts of things and then it's social as opposed to looked after by a particular authority. So I suppose in the way it's consumed, it's that less formal way of consuming the media that puts people kind of off their guard, would you say, in terms of being a bit more critical about what they're reading. I suppose if you read something in a newspaper you might be aware of the fact that newspapers can have a particular ideological position. Yes. But when something comes through on your social media feed perhaps you're not as acutely aware of the fact that this might have a particular angle or it might not be a reliable source. There's that and everything's flattened out on social media so you're getting news about particular things next to family pictures of cats. I was trying to look for another example but yes. Yes, as you say, it's shared by a friend so there's already a social aspect to it. And also I think because of the way it's shared on social media it's sort of headlines are so much more important. And people often share articles just by reading the headline and without even reading it. So it's kind of easier to kind of sustain something that's perhaps misleading with such a short amount of information that perhaps would have unraveled otherwise. And it can spread very fast, very widely. And there's no editorial control over it. One thing that cares to me, I mean isn't the kind of concerns around fake news arguably just the mainstream media carping on about the fact that they're losing market share. I mean what is there to be scared of by fake news? I mean what should we be anxious about it? The impact it has is very difficult to measure. To what extent actual fake stories have had an impact on things. But then there's this other issue that fake news has become a term that people use when they disagree with something in the news and particularly politicians. So it's just a way of closing down debate really? It's a way of closing down debate. It's a way of saying well not that I disagree with this. It's undermining the validity of someone's and that changes the relationship we have with news generally and with information and what we trust and so forth. So I suppose the mainstream media would argue that for a democracy to function we need the free flow of ideas to be able to hold those in authority over us to account. If we start to muddy the waters by suggesting that anything that's unpalatable to our own worldview is fake news and therefore not worth engaging in then where do we have this environment where we can actually hear views that might change our mind? In a way I mean some people talk about social media is you end up in a bubble whereby you're having your own particular opinions reinforced. Yeah again I think there's a nuance around this. Filter bubbles as they're called a result of the way that the technology is likely to feed you stories and opinions that you've shown in the past that you're interested in and thus the chances are that you're just going to get things you already agree with that you're going to be bounced back to. What I think is particularly concerning is when research has been done to where a lot of these fake news stories are originated from some of them can be traced back to Russia so there's this concern that there is kind of a concerted effort foreign state to undermine the democratic functioning of other states. I mean you could argue that's been going on for time immemorial seeing that with propaganda in the Second World War with characters like Lord Ho Ho but is this something that we need to be more worried about if it's coming from a foreign power perhaps we should be more concerned than we are about it. I think in many ways it's a typical case of getting to grips with how people are using new technology and the impact it has and as you say you know the same sorts of things have happened in the past in avert ways and in lesser avert ways and so in those terms yes if it's overtly being used by a foreign state as a propaganda weapon which the suggestion is it is then yes it obviously needs to... So whose responsibility is it to do something about it? I mean you could argue some people call for more regulation of social media companies other people might put the onus on the individuals who are consuming it to be a little bit more critical a little bit more circumspect about what they're reading and even institutions like ours have a role in that is it the case that we're just not used to the technologies that we're using now and that we haven't evolved a way to handle them in a way that we have other technologies? My feeling is yes, not least because these technologies are constantly changing following the elections and when fake news as a modern notion suddenly became such a big topic a lot of criticism was that Facebook other social media sites needed some sort of regulation But there are problems, yeah I mean the concern I'd have with extra regulation really is that there can be some unintended consequences of things like that if we are to have a genuine democracy where people can access information and make their own minds up that's all part of the system that helps us keep our government to account so that the whole system I think does rely on a free play of ideas the situation is different now because of the technology and perhaps regulation is required Two points to it, I think one of the things is that so back to this idea that Facebook it's one company who has the possibility to in effect manipulate how people see the world so that would be an argument for possibly some states' oversight of that but the other thing that you mentioned the technology is firstly it's new generally and secondly it's changing all the time and some of it's secretive how the algorithms work are actually secretive getting to grips with that is more than just someone telling you you need some sort of education so I think education is a hugely important part of that Ultimately you want people to be able to make informed decisions but you can't do that unless you have an understanding of how the information is being circulated but I do think this is the point I've made elsewhere that universities in a very good position to teach this sort of stuff because we already teach it in terms of academic skills how you verify information that you're putting in an essay or something like that well it's the same thing but in society in general So I suppose it's like many things it's a combination of different factors but I would argue that the state does have a role to play and I think some people can overplay the card of avoiding state regulation of the media because we do have it to a certain extent because we have specific rules around broadcasting that don't apply to broadcasting on a social media platform maybe we need to think again about revisiting that and of course the law is, as it is, will stop there are ways in which legally there are remedies for someone knowingly spreading false information about someone that would have the effect of damaging their character but it's just getting that balance Yes, and the general context of this coming back to the idea that fake news has sort of almost two different meanings when you've got those in power using the term as a way of undermining news generally, news media generally it makes it very difficult I mean we're talking about government regulation or something but if the government themselves are doing their best to muddy the waters in the way we were talking about that then comes to a question of ethics and it's a question of ethics of those in public life and the quality of leadership which that becomes a rather more problematic issue which is why I think that the term fake news has become such an interesting one because if it was just a few people in Russia putting out false stories you can see that's a particular thing maybe we can work out a way to do that but it's opened up this whole idea of how information circulates how the world is mediated by media companies and how we as individuals in the society deal with that Yeah