Ethics of Fake News

The ethics of fake news can be a quite polarizing topic. Many are entirely against spreading fake news intentionally, while some believe that an audience gullible enough to fall for outrageously fabricated information deserves to be deceived. I have found myself of the latter opinion before, but was that inconsistent with my belief about the ethicality of fake news? A concrete example of this fake news dilemma arose when Kam Harris wrote about fraudulent votes for Hillary Clinton found in an Ohio warehouse. I have a hard time shaking the belief that I have always had about that instance - Kam Harris was an independent journalist and he could publish any story, true or false, and feel ethically sound, unless it slandered or defamed innocent people. Additionally, I have felt that anyone who would be so careless to believe his story without checking its sources or considering critically all of the invented facets of it, ought to be fooled. This opinion so begs the question: Does a journalist have an obligation to his/her readership to publish only accurate news?

As damaging as fake news can be, I still believe that an independent journalist, who does not have to answer to any sort of supervisor, should be able to spread fake news and feel at peace with it ethically. If the people have a problem with it, then we should be responsible for recognizing it and not giving it undeserved attention. More clicks lead to more readers - the first readers must squash it. Although I would personally feel remorseful setting out to deceive, someone who is not writing for any news organization beyond his/her own self is not inherently unethical for writing fake news.