Loosening standards of journalism

Anna Lippincott

al859011@ohio.edu

The rise digital age brought a new form of journalism. It opened the doors for vast community generated journalism and extensive crowd sourcing. Anyone can have a Twitter handle, start his own blog, create a website, express freedom of speech, and theoretically anyone can be a journalist. There are incredible positive aspects to the rise of the digital, for example incredible speed at getting information out, multiple points of view easily accessible, and limitless availability for space. While there are certainly more pros to digital media, there is particularly one large negative aspect that has to be accounted for.

Because in the Internet world everyone has a voice and everyone can be a journalist, there is no way to filter information on the whole. Anyone can post anything, and so many people are misinformed or incorrectly educated on issues after reading unknowingly biased articles or resorting to click-bait type websites.

So many times on news-sharing sites like Facebook, people post and re-post articles from friends, and articles with little to no validity can go viral. The vast majority of re-posted articles I see on my Facebook home page are from no-name sites that use headlines as a trap to get more viewers. Going through my home page now, shared sites are “elitedaily,” “rare.us,” “attitude.co,” and “scary_mommy.” These sites have no credibility and so many people just fall into their traps. Citizens are becoming more and more misinformed and believe the falsities they read on the Internet just because someone else posted it too.

At least once per week I read a ridiculous article share from a Facebook friend accompanied by a “wow, didn’t know this!” or “so sad!” type comment. Reading the comments that follow the post, so many people just buy into whatever they read, which lessens journalism standards and makes it harder for real journalists (journalists dedicated to the truth and informing citizens) to gain credibility.

Via slate.com

Many sites like the Onion boast themselves upon being satirical and totally fictional, but countless times I have seen people post Onion articles and actually believe what they read. I remember this being so hilariously exemplified after the The Huffington Post Comedy released an article stating Time regretted its decision to name Pope Francis “Person of the Year” after Beyoncé shocked the world with her secret album. I saw at least a dozen posts of people disgraced that Time would regret its decision, and was disgusted that so many people believe whatever they read. The Onion has gotten better and better at making their stories more elaborate, but if people believe what an openly satirical site puts out, there is no saying as to what people think of more-legitimate sounding sites.

According to the 2009 State of the Media report, the largest way the Internet is changing the fundamental values of journalism is through the loosening of standards and less carefulness online. It is a tragedy that certain outlets do not hold their work to the same standards as many professional journalists, but it is up to journalists to continue to work hard and produce content that is demanded and held to a higher regard than fictional and biased works.