Gizmodo recently ran a story concerning Senior Advisor the President Jared Kushner and a previously published, and later retracted, article from Reuters claiming Kushner was in Iraq over the weekend along with chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph F. Dunford. This story was also published by several other news outlets including the New York Times, CNN, and Fox News. This original story sparked some controversy as Kushner has no diplomatic experience and it was unconventional that he should be visiting an important US ally before Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. What is significant about this story is that Reuters later withdrew their article, writing that the story was simply incorrect. This is significant because several other news outlets had published the same story with confirmation from anonymous White House officials. This caused a lot confusion and allegations of “fake news”.

I am publishing this article to the blog because I think that it highlights the recent issues that the media is facing in gaining and maintaining public trust. For me, this prompts an interesting discussion on why the identifier of “fake news” gets attached to a story, why it had recently become so prevalent, and what the media can do in the face of such intense distrust. I think it is noteworthy to point out that many of the tactics we read about in “Beautiful Trouble” rely on gaining favorable public opinion and media attention. By labeling certain outlets as purveyors of fake news, it diminishes any activist message that makes its way into that particular publication. Tactics like Creative Disruption and the Banner Hang rely on the media picking up activist’s messages and writing about their cause. If the reputation of the media outlet is tarnished with fake news allegations, it limits the amount of people that message is reaching and maybe even negatively affects the activists and their cause.