Why real reporting matters more than ever in the age of social media, AI and “fake news”

THUNDER BAY – VIEWPOINT – In today’s digital world, information moves faster than ever, but speed is not the same thing as truth. A social media post can be published in seconds, shared widely before anyone asks who created it, and then amplified by algorithms designed to reward emotion, outrage and novelty.

At NetNewsLedger we get news tips, and questions from readers seeking to find out about rumours over incidents in the city. As part of our standards, we seek information from the most likely and reliable sources. If it is a city issue, we contact the City of Thunder Bay, in instances of crime or rumours of a crime we contact the OPP or Thunder Bay Police Service for facts.

It can take time, it is certainly not as thrilling as reporting rumours. But it is what makes for verifiable reporting.

Today once people add artificial intelligence to that mix, the challenge becomes even harder: images, audio and video can now be generated or altered in ways that look convincing even when they are false.

Canadians are feeling that pressure.

Statistics Canada reported that 59 per cent of Canadians in 2023 were very or extremely concerned about misinformation online, while 43 per cent said it had become harder to distinguish true from false news or information than it was three years earlier.

Real reporting is not just content — it is a verification process

That is why real reporting matters. Journalism, at its best, is not simply posting information first. It is a method for checking what is true, what is not yet proven, who is making a claim, what evidence supports it and what context the public needs to understand it.

The Canadian Association of Journalists says journalists should verify the identities and backgrounds of sources, verify information obtained online, seek documentation and distinguish assertions from facts.

The Associated Press describes verification as something built into every stage of reporting, with facts corroborated through documents and on-the-record sources and visual material checked for metadata, timing and location.

Social media works differently. It is useful, fast and often valuable for eyewitness accounts and early tips, but it does not require the standards that newsrooms do.

Pew Research found many people appreciate social media for convenience and speed, yet four in 10 Americans who get news there said inaccuracy is the part they dislike most.

In Canada, CIRA reported in 2024 that visiting specific news sites remained the top way people accessed news online, ahead of Facebook, at a time when concern about misinformation and fake images or videos was already high.

One issue that Prime Minister Mark Carney and local MPs Minister Patty Hajdu and Markus Powlowski could help with is breaking the impasse between META / Facebook and Canadian News Links on the social media platform.

Media links from Canadian sources are not allowed on Facebook, and it makes getting the truth out there harder.

AI has made seeing no longer the same as believing

Artificial intelligence has raised the stakes because it weakens one of the public’s oldest instincts: believing what appears to be visible proof.

The Associated Press says any output from a generative AI tool should be treated as unvetted source material, and it does not allow the use of generative AI to add or subtract elements from news photos, video or audio.

UNESCO has warned that deepfakes blur reality and create a broader crisis in how people know what is real, while a report based on an expert workshop organized through CSIS examined deepfake disinformation as a serious and evolving threat.

Canadians are noticing. CIRA’s 2025 internet trends report said 74 per cent of Canadians were worried about AI-generated fake content, 34 per cent said they had encountered a deepfake in the previous year and 59 per cent viewed deepfakes as a threat to democratic elections. Those are not abstract concerns.

They point to an online environment where the old advice to “just watch the video” or “look at the photo” is no longer enough.

Calling factual reporting “fake news” is a political tactic, not a fact check

Real reporting also matters because truth is now challenged from two directions at once. On one side are falsehoods, rumours and synthetic media.

On the other are political efforts to discredit legitimate journalism by calling it biased, corrupt or “fake” whenever coverage is inconvenient.

Donald Trump did not invent political dishonesty, but he helped normalize the modern use of “fake news” as a weapon against established reporting. Britannica notes that after the 2016 U.S. election, Trump regularly used the term to disparage negative coverage from reputable media organizations.

Reuters reported in March 2026 that Trump has long labelled the press “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people,” while the Reuters Institute said in 2025 that he has long used the phrase to vilify media critical of his policies.

That distinction matters.

A factual error can and should be challenged with evidence. A weak story can be criticized on its merits. But simply branding unwelcome reporting as “fake news” without proving it false is not accountability.

It is an attempt to make the public doubt the very idea that facts can be checked at all. Once that happens, every claim becomes just another opinion, and the loudest voice has the advantage.

Frankly, perhaps one solution is to look seriously at anyone calling out media as “Fake News” and that you should only trust “them” should be a major red flag to the potential for bias.

Why this matters in Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario

This issue is not only about Washington, Silicon Valley or national politics. It matters in Thunder Bay and across Northwestern Ontario because misinformation here can have immediate, real-world consequences.

False or misleading posts about school safety, police incidents, road closures, wildfire conditions, boil-water advisories, elections, mining projects or Indigenous issues can spread confusion long before an official update or verified report catches up. In a region where communities are far apart, emergency information can be urgent and rumours can travel quickly through local social networks, trusted reporting becomes a public service, not just a product.

Ottawa has acknowledged the broader problem. The federal government says the Canadian Digital Media Research Network, launched in 2023 and overseen independently by the Media Ecosystem Observatory, studies how online disinformation affects Canadians and supports evidence-based digital literacy strategies.

That national response reflects a simple reality: misinformation is not just annoying online clutter. It affects trust, civic life and democratic decision-making. Statistics Canada has also linked concern about misinformation to lower trust and weaker confidence in national unity and institutions.

What real reporting gives the public

Real reporting matters because it shows its work. It names sources where possible. It distinguishes between what is known, what is alleged and what remains unconfirmed. It adds context instead of chasing only reaction. It corrects errors publicly. It resists manipulation from viral outrage, partisan talking points and machine-generated deception. Most important, it gives citizens a better chance to make decisions based on verified facts rather than emotional momentum.

In a polluted information environment, journalism is not valuable because reporters are perfect.

It is valuable because verification, transparency and correction remain the best tools the public has for getting closer to the truth.

That matters everywhere. In Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario, where public safety, public trust and public debate all depend on reliable information, it matters even more.