The truth (as I see it): philosophical considerations influencing a typology of fake news
| Published date | 06 May 2019 |
| Pages | 150-158 |
| Date | 06 May 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-12-2018-2149 |
| Author | Caitlin Candice Ferreira,Jeandri Robertson,Marnell Kirsten |
| Subject Matter | Marketing |
The truth (as I see it): philosophical
considerations influencing a typology
of fake news
Caitlin Candice Ferreira and Jeandri Robertson
Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden, and
Marnell Kirsten
Department of Human Studies, Red and Yellow Creative School of Business, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the philosophical considerations of fake news and provide an alternative view to
current conceptualizations of its binary nature. Through an evaluation of existing research, a typology of fake news is presented that considers the
possibility that the propagation of fake news about a brand, may be stemming from the brand itself, a previously unexplored field in the literature.
Design/methodology/approach –This is a conceptual paper based on extensive literature review on the fields of fake news and knowledge
creation, resulting in the creation of a synthesized typology.
Findings –Theroleofpowerstructuresgreatlyinfluences the ability for a brand to respond to fake news. Externally constructed disinformation is
seemingly more difficult for a brand to address, as a result of having limited control over the message. Internally constructed information, while stemming
from the brand itself provides the brand with more control, but a greater public distrust as the source of the fake news seems to confirm the disinformation.
Practical implications –This paper presents a typology that contrasts the source of the construction of disinformation and the extent to which the
facts have been fabricated. Furthermore, this paper provides future researchers with an alternate understanding of the conceptualizati on of fake
news.
Originality/value –This paper is the first of its kind to establish a typology of fake news on the basis of the source of construction of
disinformation. The source plays an important role when assessing the associated brand risks and developing an approach to combat potential
negative implications.
Keywords Marketing communications, Fake news
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
How sweet was information in the days of truth! How sweet was science in
the days of the real! How sweet was objectivity in the time of the object!
(Baudrillard, 1990, p. 89).
Information falsification is not new. Disinformation,
misinformation and propaganda have been human
communication traits since at least 44 BC in Ancient Rome,
when Octavian, a shrewd propagandist, strived to secure his
fate as the first emperor of Rome by waging a disinformation
war against the personal brand of Mark Antony (Ireton and
Posetti, 2018;Kaminska, 2017). Using what can be described
as archaic-style tweets, Octavian sought to smear his
opponent’s reputation by using short, sharp slogans written on
coins, depicting Antonyas a womanizer and a drunk. Although
the Roman republicans saw the fraudulent rhetoric for what it
was –fake news –the fabricated narrative helped him to defeat
his opponent. Millennia later the term fake news likely still
conjures up images of finger-waggingpoliticians who are intent
on convincing theiraudience of their representation of the truth
by refuting and declaring opposing information as inherently
unfounded.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (2017), fake
news is frequently used to describe a political story seen as
damaging to a person, entity or agency. It is, however, by no
means restricted to the political realm and seemingly has
currency in terms of general news too. It mostly refers to false or
counterfeit material reported in a newspaper, newscast or
periodical (Merriam-Webster, 2017). Operationally defined,
Berthon and Pitt (2018) simply suggest that it encompassesall
forms of false information. In recent times, literature across
various disciplines including brand management (Berthon
et al.,2018;Shocker et al., 1994), communication and
information (Tandoc, Ling, Westlund, Duffy, Goh, and Wei,
2018), media studies (Ross and Rivers, 2018;Meddaugh, 2010),
health sciences (Kmietowicz, 2013) and psychology (Pennycook
et al.,2018)have raised clear calls for conceptual clarity regarding
thenatureof‘truth’in information. There currently exists no
universally accepted theory or definition of truth (Stahl, 2006)
and, as Sahlins (1976) argues, every theory strikes a bargain with
Thecurrentissueandfulltextarchiveofthisjournalisavailableon
Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
29/2 (2020) 150–158
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-12-2018-2149]
Received 1 December 2018
Revised 17 January 2019
Accepted 15 February 2019
150
To continue reading
Request your trial