26 February 2020- EAA "Reflection"

1. The article titled, “If Democrats fight right-wing ‘fake news’ fire with fire, we all lose”
says that some in the Democratic Party think that fighting back at Trump’s camp with
fake news is the only way to defeat him. However, it claims that doing this would
“undermine an intelligent democracy in the long run. They are also likely to be
ineffective and even counter-productive” (Hasen). Meaning this would only lower the
quality of our democracy and could even set us backwards rather than promote progress.
This position is clear and arguable by many different sides.

2. The article gives plenty of background information on the group called Acronym saying,
“Another affiliate of Acronym, Courier Newsroom, has set up what appear to be local
news sites but are actually propaganda efforts aimed at creating content to be shared on
social media to boost moderate Democrats” (Hasen). The background information about
this group shares who they are affiliated with and what their common practices look like.
This is all in order to provide the reader with an understanding of where this group
originated from and what their purpose is.

3. This topic is especially important in this year of 2020 because it is an election year. This
article pertains to this election and future elections. The article questions how we can
trust certain sources and the possible negative effects of using fake news to fight fake
news. The article claims that journalists who go along with the fake news train are only
adding to the problem and devaluing their profession as well (Hansen). This is important
for people to think about especially during election season when the amount of false
information is continuously put out on the internet.

4. The article includes clear reasoning and evidence such as the claim that “[c]heap speech
on social media makes everyone doubt everything they read, making people willing to
pay less for reliable information and further flooding the information environment with
misinformation lemons” (Hasen). It answers the claim that this practice only undermines
democracy and essentially causes misinformation to spread indiscriminately.

5. This article does give the opposition a chance to voice their opinions. For example, when
the head of the dry Alabama effort said, "If you don't do it, you're fighting with one hand
tied behind your back... You have a moral imperative to do this — to do whatever it
takes” (Hasen). This showed the oppositions viewpoint that we must fight back by any
means necessary in order to win. Thus, the reason why they chose to fight fire with fire
against Trump’s camp.

6. The article uses an authoritative tone when it brought in many different sources from both
sides showing that while they are aware of the opposition, their point that fighting fire
with fire is not viable still rings true. It also provides good evidence that is supported by
sources and experts in that field like political scientists and researchers such as Brendan
Nyhan, Tara McGowan, Matt Osbourne, and others.
 Works Cited

Hasen, Richard L. “If Democrats Fight Right-Wing ‘Fake News’ Fire with Fire, We All Lose.”

Salon, Salon.com, 23 Feb. 2020, www.salon.com/2020/02/23/if-democrats-fight-right-

wing-fake-news-fire-with-fire-we-all-lose/.