Beyond “Fake News”: A Call For Conceptual Precision In Media And Communication Discourse, By Olanihun Sunday Zechariah

By Olanihun Sunday Zechariah
Olanihunzechariah@gmail.com
+2347038572068

Few expressions have gained as much prominence in contemporary media discourse as the phrase “fake news.” It dominates political campaigns, social media conversations, academic debates, and everyday discussions about information credibility. Although the term has become part of popular vocabulary, its widespread acceptance should not discourage critical reflection. Within the discipline of Mass Communication, where language and concepts shape professional practice, the expression deserves scrutiny.

At first glance, the phrase appears convenient. It is commonly used to describe information perceived as false, fabricated, manipulated, or misleading. However, a closer examination reveals an inherent conceptual contradiction.

News, in its professional and academic sense, refers to factual, timely, verified, and accurate information about events of public interest. Journalism earns its credibility through adherence to core principles such as truth, verification, fairness, accuracy, independence, and accountability. These standards distinguish genuine news from rumours, propaganda, speculation, satire, opinion, and fiction.

The difficulty arises when the adjective “fake” is attached to the noun “news.” The word “fake” denotes something false, fabricated, or inauthentic. News, by definition, cannot simultaneously be truthful and false. If information is fabricated, it has failed the most fundamental test required to qualify as news. Conversely, if it has been professionally verified as news, it cannot be fake. The expression therefore combines two opposing ideas, creating a conceptual inconsistency.

This distinction is especially important for students and scholars of Mass Communication. Academic disciplines rely on conceptual precision. Repeatedly referring to fabricated information as “news”—even when qualified by the word “fake”—risks blurring the boundary between journalism and falsehood. Such ambiguity may inadvertently weaken public understanding of what journalism represents.

The Nigerian media environment provides several examples that illustrate why conceptual precision matters.

During the 2023 general elections, numerous manipulated videos, altered election results, and false claims circulated widely across WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and TikTok. Some posts falsely announced winners before the electoral commission released official results, while others recycled old videos and presented them as evidence of election violence. These were not “news”; they were cases of disinformation deliberately created or shared to influence public opinion and heighten political tension.

Similarly, during the EndSARS protests in 2020, both authentic and misleading materials flooded social media. Old photographs from unrelated incidents were reposted as if they were current, while some videos were taken out of context. Some users unknowingly shared inaccurate information, illustrating misinformation, while others intentionally spread deceptive content to manipulate public perception, an example of disinformation. Distinguishing between these two phenomena is far more helpful than simply labelling everything “fake news.”

Health communication offers another example. During the COVID-19 pandemic, false claims that drinking alcohol, consuming herbal mixtures, or taking excessive doses of certain drugs could prevent coronavirus infection spread rapidly across Nigerian social media.

Such messages endangered public health. They are more accurately described as health misinformation or health disinformation, depending on whether the falsehood was shared unintentionally or deliberately.
Beyond its conceptual limitations, the phrase “fake news” has increasingly become a political weapon.

Around the world, political leaders and public officials frequently dismiss unfavourable yet factual reports as “fake news” simply because they expose wrongdoing or challenge official narratives. The label is often used to undermine journalists’ credibility rather than engage with the evidence presented.
Nigeria has witnessed similar tendencies. Investigative reports on corruption, governance, insecurity, and public spending have sometimes been dismissed by public officials as “fake news” before any factual engagement with the substance of the reports. Such responses risk eroding public confidence in professional journalism while distracting attention from legitimate issues requiring accountability.

For these reasons, communication scholars, journalists, and media practitioners should prioritise terminology that accurately reflects the nature of the information being discussed. Expressions such as misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, fabricated information, manipulated content, false reports, deceptive communication, propaganda, and unverified information provide greater analytical precision.

These distinctions are not merely semantic. Misinformation refers to false information shared without an intention to deceive. Disinformation involves false information deliberately created or disseminated to mislead. Malinformation, on the other hand, involves genuine information shared maliciously to cause harm, such as publishing private personal data without justification. Each concept identifies a distinct form of information disorder and enables researchers, journalists, policymakers, and the public to respond more effectively.

This approach aligns with contemporary scholarship on information disorder, which encourages moving beyond the simplistic and politically loaded phrase “fake news” toward more precise classifications that enhance both academic understanding and professional practice.
Mass Communication students must therefore cultivate the habit of interrogating concepts critically rather than accepting popular expressions uncritically. Their responsibility extends beyond producing news reports. It includes preserving the integrity of language, promoting intellectual rigour, and strengthening public confidence in journalism.

The continued, indiscriminate use of the phrase “fake news” risks diluting the meaning of news itself. Journalism can only maintain its legitimacy when it remains firmly grounded in verification, evidence, and truth. Information that is fabricated, manipulated, or deceptive should be identified according to its specific characteristics rather than being loosely categorised as “news.”

Ultimately, words matter. They shape public understanding, influence policy debates, and define professional standards. While the expression “fake news” may remain useful as a popular or historical label, scholars and media professionals should increasingly adopt more precise terminology. Doing so not only strengthens academic discourse but also reinforces the distinction between journalism, which is founded on verification and truth, and false information, which merely masquerades as news.