Fake news is now such an ubiquitous term I’m not sure it holds much value anymore. Not because it isn’t an issue, but because it doesn’t mean the same thing to different audiences. Those tired of hearing U.S. President Trump throw it around in response to stories he doesn’t like pretty much ignore it; those who are on-side with Trump seem to agree that mainstream media are full of shit; and I simply can’t keep up with the tsunami of articles, think-pieces, and discussions on whether “fake news” is an issue, how media organizations should respond to it, and how to encourage media literacy to ensure people can identify fact from fiction.
Today at Sheridan College a panel made up of CBC’s David Common; the VP of Digital at Canadian Press, Andrew Lundy; and Gabrielle Gallant from the Government of Ontario are talking fake news. The panel was put together by Public Relations students from Sheridan College, which is an interesting fact in itself…but I digress. If you want to follow along with the discussion you can do so by clicking on the picture below to get to the live blog I’ll be running for J-Source.
Redefining Journalism's Blog 
Why do you digress? What makes this event being hosted by Sheridan Public Relations students interesting in itself?
I think it’s interesting that public relations students are taking the time to address this issue vs. journalism students. Although all of the discussions surrounding fake news are certainly of interest to PR students from the perspective of shaping a message, this panel was, largely, focused on journalism itself. Also, there’s always been an interesting dynamic between journalists and PR professionals because of PR’s need for journalists to share stories and journalists’ need to get information from PR strategists–something even more prevalent now when there are fewer journalists in newsrooms than there used to be and there’s an increased reliance on press releases and PR packages. I didn’t get a chance to ask the students who organized the event why they chose the topic, but that’s where my digression was headed.
Thank you for your explanation.