Chronicle Editorial

21 Century Zines
     Who remembers the “Fanzine?” Or as they would become more well known in the 1970 counter-culture movement, “Zines?” As a quick refresher, these “zines” were magazines put together by small groups of people for the most niche of audiences. They found their popularity in the 70s as an underground, newsletter-esque method of communication, documenting up and coming bands and cultural trends. They usually weren’t shared for a profit and their quality showed, usually just pieces of copy paper stapled together with taped photos and articles, and rarely in color.
     Zines date back as far as the 18th century. The most notable Zine-like publication is Thomas Paines’ Common Sense, which wasn’t printed by a newspaper, rather was a copied pamphlet. In the 1930’s Zines functioned as pulp magazines, gaining notoriety among science fiction crowds before becoming popular in the Vietnam-era among counter culture youths.
     While haphazardly put together for various reasons (jokes, newsletters or even news) zines served the purpose that blogs currently do: topical news/information, usually with an opinion attached to it. If you asked anyone to look at a zine and an issue of the Washington Post, they’d immediately tell you that the zine was far less professionally done, and disregard it, as was done by most, which is why zines never burst outside of the areas they were conceptualized.
     Now, with the advent and mass accessibility and affordability of the internet, zines, just like newspapers, physically appear to be fading and finding a new home on a digital platform. But with this affordability and accessibility, comes a consequence in determining what is real, and what is fake on the Internet; what is a zine, and what is a credible news source.
     Many reports following the election have cited the spread of “fake news” on social media as a variable in the election outcomes. Regardless of the election outcome, the spread of fake news poses an even larger problem to the nation that is being toned-down for the sake of the election, rather than upholding the integrity of the only constitutionally protected profession in the world.
     Fake news, taken as real news, establishes a credibility bias among consumers of media. In our trusting of “professional” news sites, we have come to trust all news sites. With immense access to the Internet and the power of sharing on Facebook, even a comedic story can become newsworthy with a couple thousand shares, and be taken seriously, rather than as humor.
     What used to separate fake news and real news was this zine vs. newspaper production quality. There’s an economic principal called barriers of entry by production, in which start-up companies can’t reach a big enough economy of scale to compete, so a product is made of a different, more economical material. For example, a newspaper had a large enough profit margin to be able to print thousands of newspaper and mass mail them to readers. Three teenagers don’t have access to that kind of cash, so they went to a local print shop and printed 13 copies of a magazine they made and gave the issues to just their friends. In larger case scenarios, advertisements were sold in zines, but mailing was never an option.
     With the Internet, a domain name costs approximately $18 per five years, a plethora of server space could cost approximately $200 and an aesthetic website design could cost approximately $80 per year. For under $300, anyone, anywhere, can create a competitive site, which could pay for itself with the right advertising and cheap labor force. Such is the blog model that many follow. No longer is it hard to reach economies of scale with the spread of information. The playing field is level with New York Times.
     Because of this, the job of the citizens to be as informed as possible, is becoming more challenging. As journalists, we sometimes chase down stories that are fake. We are often faced with the dilemma that just because we can’t verify a fact online, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Differentiating news is hard.
     In many ways, the Internet has helped. The ability for something to go viral without the coverage of CNN or the NYT has made the sharing of information faster, and has completely bypassed the commercialization of news. That’s terrific. But it has also made it hard to verify if the viral story not being covered by CNN is true, or if an article from a website with millions of viewers is actually legitimate.
     But there is something you can do. News travels in packs, and if it is very important, multiple sources will be reporting on it. Want to see if a scandal is legitimate? Google the topic with CNN, Washington post or New York Times next to it. If those sources, with tremendous amounts of man power, haven’t posted something, odds are it isn’t true.
     The next method is if the source is opinionated. While there is an inherent bias in news, that bias won’t be in the language of reporting. If the text directly insults someone of makes the claim that someone did something, without quoting it from a direct source, odds are that the claims aren’t true. For instance, this article is an opinion. These methods are not tried and true. Some times they fail, which is why this editorial is in the opinion section.
     Journalists get duped, too. Everyone does. Examining what’s true and what are fact less claims is very hard to do, especially with the Internet. We live in time of convenience, but also of more culpability and responsibility. To keep the integrity of our free press, we must work to keep it honorable.