In order to have a greater insight in audience perspectives on fake news in this changing media setting, we brought up the issue in 8 focus groups conducted across the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Finland. It is crucial to highlight that the term “fake news” generated bigger discussion in the United Kingdom and especially the United States than in Spain and Finland.

“Fake News” – News associated with misinformation from different sources, including journalists. Seen as distinguished from news primarily by degree. Also recognized as weaponized by critics of news media and platform companies.

News – Associated with professionally produced information that is accurate, timely, relevant, clearly communicated, and fair. There is often no clear agreement on where to draw the line between fake news and news.

These latter categories are seen as different from journalism in general primarily by degree; for audiences, the difference between fake news and real news is not absolute but gradual. The main categories in popular understandings of fake news: satire, poor journalism, propaganda, some advertising, false news.

The intent of the creator is less relevant than the fact of the harm—the insidious damage is the fact that the proliferation of false information discredits sources of relatively accurate and credible information regardless of what a specific “fake news” story is intended to accomplish. Three corollary harms were noted: first, the problem of increasing fragmentation and politicization; second, the promotion of “safe news” at the expense of difficult or challenging news stories; third, the need for credible sources to allocate ever-diminishing resources to debunking inaccurate information (which poses both financial and reputational costs). People retweet or share an article based on its headline and without ever having clicked on—and therefore without ever having actually read it. This allows misinformation to be seen, accepted, and promoted just as much, if not more, than higher-quality information.

First – People see the difference between fake news and real news as one of degree

According to focus group responses, “fake news can be seen as a broad and diverse category and one that is separated from other forms of news primarily by degree.” Furthermore, respondents say that discrepancy between fake news and real ones is not “black and white” and that fake news are not a problem that exists for few years, but rather “an age-old problem”. Additionally, respondents offered a wide variety of fake news definitions.

One of definitions was that fake news are “news that don’t have a factual basis and are coloured, leaning, biased.”

Participants made a distinction between “source cues” and “social cues”. Source cues are brands participants trust, while social cues are people participants trust. Respondents said that when verifying information, they rely on family, friends and their own research.

Second – The main forms of fake news people identify are poor journalism, political propaganda, and some forms of advertising

The examples given by the participants of the focus group, were much more focused on their personal opinion regarding what fake news truly is, rather than on the actual definition of the term itself. Their examples were focused on incapable or biased journalism, use of media for propaganda purposes, content used in marketing and advertising, while very few of the participants spoke about fabricated content which presents itself as news. This demonstrates that people are inclined to look at the issue of false news from a broader perspective which inevitably leads to labeling certain individuals in positions of power as the guilty parties.

Journalism in its core is a noble craft which stands upon pillars of ethics and unbiased reporting. However, according to the opinions of participants, the work of certain categories of journalism derails the entire journalistic industry due to its sensational tone of reporting and lack of credibility in terms of providing factual news. Furthermore, another societal factor criticized by the participants in relation to false news, is politics. The participants argue that politicians manipulate news outlets by purposefully feeding them unreliable information which in turn causes a domino effect of propaganda being reported on as factual and undeniable truth.

Additionally, the participants of the focus group mostly agree on the opinion that clickbait titles and online adverts are designed to purposefully mislead the readers into opening websites which have an agenda. These websites range from simple advertisement space for whoever paid for it, all the way to specific individuals campaigning for, and spreading ideas that can otherwise not receive much attention in the mainstream media.

Satire however, as an example of purposefully misleading content, is not considered to be fake news. The reason for satire being „excused“ from this designation lies in the fact that any satirical content has an underlying tone which clearly shows the nature of the content and prevents its malintepretation as factual.

Third – People associate publishers, platforms, and politicians with fake news but also see trusted news outlets as a potential corrective

Most people would agree that the term fake news came to fruition and into existence due to lack of belief into those who report the news and those of whom the news actually talk about. When a public has the arguments to oppose and disagree with the media and politicians, it is inevitable that occasionally even factual news becomes labeled as fake. However, this happens due to the sheer number of news outlets that exist nowadays, and one of these outlets is always bound to enjoy more trust from the public than others.

Furthermore, people are constantly bombarded with online news. This type of news is simply too difficult to keep up with in terms of credibility, because every single social media user is able to bring content on different platforms which allow for said content to spread like wildfire. It is very difficult to discern what content is reliable in such a sea of sources which have very few filters that do the job of the editor in an actual news outlet.

Fourth – People are aware of the fake news discussion and see the term “fake news” in part as a politicized buzzword

Participants of the study showed a very high level of awareness regarding the issue of fake news and all the possible consequences that might arise from their misinterpretation. They recognized that the main problem with fake news is the fact that the term itself is being used by particular individuals in positions of power to discredit their opponents and cause mistrust and havoc in the public opinion. Labeling something as fake news, without actual confirmation, in a world where information spreads incredibly fast, is a very powerful weapon in the arsenal of a politician in bringing down their opposition in the eyes of the public.