First-Generation Grad Changing the World

Emily Finton
ef385214@ohio.edu

A Woman With Answers
A woman from Cleveland wearing a maxi-dress with matching black converse sat with her legs crossed in the front of a room filled to capacity. Her 90-minute presentation was eventually cut off because of an inquisitive audience searching for answers from a knowledgeable lady. The microphones weren't working so she said screw it! Without the use of a microphone, her voice still echoed to the people in the back and her body language helped prove her authority in the room. This sharp-thinking, spit-firing woman is Nina Turner. Nina is a former state senator, early supporter of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and a progressive politician.

Go Nina!
Nina's sharing of her political opinion goes way further than speaking to college students across the country. She is a political commentator for CNN, and in 2017, she started the "The Nina Turner Show." On her first episode, Bernie Sanders guest starred as her first interviewee. What I liked about this is that she followed the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics perfectly. Seeking the truth and reporting it was the main focus when working with Sen. Sanders. The one-on-one interview was the start of Turner's new broadcast platform.

A Black Female Politician's Stance Of Media Coverage 
Nina shared her thoughts about black America today and how the media is covering it. Under Mr. Trump's presidency, his speeches show neglect to the people of color who are brutally beaten, or to the people of Mexico and Puerto Rico facing environmental catastrophes. Instead, white supremacists continue to get away with brutal, racist remarks and protests. All of this is very important to Nina, but she wants to bring it back to what has been impacting people for years. Instead of the 24/7 coverage of Russia, what about Flint, Michigan? She wants the coverage of the Flint's water crisis to be just as important as what's happening in the white house.

That's exactly what she's using her platform for:
1. to elevate the voices for those who cant have their voice heard
2. to respond to problems with an intersectional solution
3. how to respond to criticism and keep pushing forward
4. to do the work of nation building, one person at a time.


So What Does Nina Want Us To Do?
Nina started advocating while in college by creating the organization "Students for Positive Action." The focus of her club was to get students involved in politics, register to vote and help change the world. "We need dreamers, we need people to push this world past what we thought we could do. Dreams create new realities," Turner said. Her inspiration has always been Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who worked to empower the youth for future generations to come. She also hopes that the newer generations can stop stereotyping and come together for the common good, so that even during a time of difficulty and racism, students today can fight back together.

More than anything, Nina wants us to follow our hearts. She grew up in a rural country background, and was the oldest of seven children. She is from a single parent household, and constantly struggled with money. Becoming a first-generation college student took motivation and her own hard work, but also came with a lot of debt. Now as a politician, she is working to revolutionize the cost of going to college, so more students can attend and create a movement as she did. Nina has been recognized nationally and by several publications for her contributions to the Bernie Sanders campaign.

For a woman who practically started from nothing, she refused to be ignored and continues to advocate for several different platforms. Her ethical reasonings of what she can do with these platforms, how she justifies her actions and making her actions morally good have helped people of all demographics.

Sacrificing Quality for Speed

Schuyler Morris
sm592914@ohio.edu


A trend in recent years among news organizations is to prioritize speed over accuracy and fact checking when getting a story out. This has led to the publication of hoaxes, many retractions, and a public outrage at the trustworthiness of the press.

From Buzzfeed to NowThis, many companies that focus on digital content make their money on how quickly they get content out. In an article titled Who Cares if It's True, NowThis says they produce up to 50 videos a day for various social media platforms. One way that they are able to do this is that they do not work on their own fact checking. If a story has run elsewhere, such as the New York Times, then whatever information is being presented is taken as already proofed. This can backfire however, when an organization is too concerned with speed and not concerned enough with the truth.

In the same article, Buzzfeed gets caught up in a scandal after they posted and propagated a hoax. From that scandal, they have since improved their business practices in an attempt to become more trustworthy. The company now hires fact checkers and copy editors in what is seen as an odd, but respectable move on the part of the internet conglomerate.

In an article titled Dirty Big Secrets, discussion of why news organizations do not take responsibility for their mistakes is discussed. Cnn and FOX are notorious for trying to cover up their mistakes, and they do not take the proper course of action when it is found that a story of theirs in false. In comparison to the constant pressure the New York Times feels to maintain truthfulness, these news organizations fail to consistently be transparent about why they failed and how they plan to rectify their mistakes and prevents them in the future. 

Transparency is the most important factor in assuring news stories are true. This means that organizations need to take responsibility when they mess up, and they need to be as transparent as possible about how they came to the stories they publish.

Deceptive Media: Are We Really Telling The Truth?

Emily O'Flynn
ef856814@ohio.edu

When I was three years old, my brother had just been born. All of my parents' attention seemed to gravitate towards him. Of course, he didn't realize how cute he was and it technically wasn't his fault that everyone drifted to him. But, the jealousy bug bit me so hard that I couldn't take it anymore.

One day, my brother and I were playing together while my mom cooked dinner. I went up to him and without any warning, I bit his finger. He screamed, as any baby would if their evil sister decided to expel an envious rage that had been building up for months.

My mom said, "What happened?" I simply responded, "Well, he just started crying."

I did not lie, because he really did just start crying. Alas, I was keeping out the tiny detail that I was the one who caused panic.

In some cases, we can use this situation as a metaphor for modern media. In the advertising world, restaurants have influenced their audiences by enticing them to believe they are much healthier than they actually are. An AdAge article delves into how KFC positioned itself as a source for health foods, trying to pass "deep fried" as " slow-cooked."

Federal Trade Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour put it into perspective, stating, "KFC... is fully aware of our nation's struggle with obesity, yet has cynically attempted to exploit a massive health problem through deceptive advertising. Companies would not be allowed to benefit monetarily from this kind of deception, especially where the health and safety of customers is compromised."

Deceptive advertising encourages lack of trust in brands. If KFC can't even properly tell me what I'm about to put in my body, why should I buy their food at all?

(image via libertyjuice.com)

When I neglected to tell my mother the truth about why my brother was crying, I felt guilty about what I had done. From an ethical standpoint, I knew I was in the wrong and I told my mom what had actually happened. I was sentenced to a cruel, deserving punishment of sitting in the "time out chair" for 15 minutes.

In the real world, the "time out chair" would actually be the loss of networking connections, credibility or a job. We must strive for the the most accurate news and branding so that our followers don't loss faith in us.

What it truly comes down to is taking ownership for mistakes. A Poynter article describes how Fox News deliberately released a political piece, depicting links between a deceased Democratic National Committee Staffer, Seth Rich, and Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Within hours of publishing the article, it was discredited. Somehow, it took Fox an entire week to remove the incorrect story from their website.

If we, as journalists and advertisers are not being true to our audiences, how can we expect them to want to read our material or buy our products? Taking ownership for mistakes is pertinent in this industry, and not removing incorrect information in a timely manner will lose vast credibility in the long run for news sources.

The Role of Truth in Media

Ryan Parent
rp041012@ohio.edu

       In this current age of media it can be difficult to weed out what is quality, trustworthy media, over the piles and piles of fake and unverified news.  It has become difficult to tell whether classic sources can be trusted anymore and it brings about the question, what is it that makes a news source credible in the digital age and why is it important.

Source: Newyork times

      Different areas of media and consumerism are currently being tested by the American people to see exactly what their morals are and what they can get away with this days.  At Buzzfeed the role of the employee has become an all inclusive job that hopes to push the envelope of truth in online journalism.  The higher ups at the publication have made it clear that they want their readers to be able to trust the content generated on the site while not losing out on the importance of quickness.  The big question that seems to come up though is where do we draw the line?  Is it bad journalism to post online immediately about a story without all the facts?

       It may seem unethical but sometimes breaking news has to break before all the details are available and a lot of times breaking news can end up as a "shitshow" but there are certain instances where people need any info over quality info.  How can this idea be adapted into a workable strategy for those of us working for a career in a field of blurred lines and uncertainty? The truth must be made clear, or ignorance must be made clear.  Fact checking is still extremely important and seems to be making a comeback after a "bow out" of inconsistency brought about by the internet age.

       People are also finding it hard to decide whether reader generated comments are newsworthy and worth making available on news sites. As said in the Columbia Journalism Review piece on non-fake news, journalists are creators and adaptors of media and in my opinion it is absurd to not allow readers to become part of the story by being able to add to and clarify what is being produced to the public.  Even though it is important to stick to facts, it is also important to understand all angles and see that their may be more than one story or side at play.

        So as I come full circle and readdress the idea of what to do, I realize that there is no answer for the same reason we have the question itself, life is uncertain in nature.  You never know what the impact of a breaking news story will have or the power that a user generated comment can have on a story whether true or false.  As journalists it is up to us to find the middle ground and create a media generation that does not need to second guess its sources.  This means having live editing to fix mistakes and roll with updates as well as caring about who our audience is and how the pieces we produce will effect them and the world other than website hits.  It is 100% up to us to make sure that journalism as a trusted art stays alive.

A Crisis of Trust in Mass Media

Xiaoyun Ma

xm445015@ohio.edu

Source: Community Journalism 

Trust in mass media has hit the historical low-point. Only one-fifth of Americans adults believe in the news they get from national news organizations, according to Pew Research Center.

It seems trendy to have anger in lies in mass media. The news organizations, the advertising corporations, and politicians seemingly ally to feed the public lies. People doubt and question everything they read in the news. And now, both mass media and the public have been stuck in the middle of the trust crisis. How did things end up like this? "American's trust level in the media has drifted downward over the past decade, But some of the loss in trust may have been self-inflicted," said Rebecca Riffkin, a Gallup News analyst.

According to the elements of journalism, journalists' first obligation is informing nothing but truth and facts other than stating their opinions. However, when it comes to partisan politics, journalists and news corporations tend to take sides. Thirty-four percent of national news organization identified as liberal, in contrast to 7 percent conservative, according to Pew Research Center. Like we all know that Fox is leaning right, as opposed to CNN and The New York Times is leftward. While the news giants are keen on taking sides, and the partisan issues of news contents are rapidly growing, the objectivity of stories is fading away.

Around the presidential election, trust in mass media has consistently declined. It started in 2004, and now it crumbled last year. President Trump has criticized liberal mainstream media for being unfair to him, and he even tweeted "The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people." It somehow explains why trust in the mainstream media has melted down among Republicans.

Since faith in mass media has collapsed, what about social media? People seem always hold confused feelings on social media (Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube). People use Twitter to keep up the latest news and share the opinion; meanwhile, it contains countless misleading information and untrue contents. According to The New York Times, a false post about Trump was shared 16,000 times on Twitter.

People criticized news agencies and journalists of mainstream media for being dishonest and biased on the stories they covered. Nonetheless, people could make mistakes easily on the social media, and everyone could accidentally turn into fake news sharers, even makers. The public probably just put too much expectation on journalists, but they are not flawless. They make honest mistakes; it could be a typo or a misplaced comma which could misrepresent the meaning of the whole sentence. And the facts they found could be proved wrong next day.

To own a positive suspect on media, first, we should analyze the source. How many sources does the news possess? Are these sources objective and credible? Second, publication and writers. Does the story come from an authoritative news organizations or authors? Third, timelines. Check the date of publication and the content recent enough. Fourth, what is the purpose of the news story?

 Rebuilding the trust of mass media have a long way to go, but mass media can start with covering more both sides stories, social media can develop more sophisticated fact checking system, and the public can obtain better self-reflection and healthy skepticism.

Give The People What They Need To Hear

Miki McIntyre
mm037213@ohio.edu

In today’s society, news is constantly changing in so many aspects. This can range from the way we access content, the impact of social media, and even the accuracy of our news, something that should be the least of worries when it comes to catching up with the world.

http://gamesnosh.com/can-trust-video-game-journalism/

Our outlets for news ranges from so many different types of websites, newspapers, magazines, etc. One example of what’s considered unique is Buzzfeed. This company is well known for very unusual blog posts and online quizzes ranging from “What kind of mother will you be?” to “What type of salad dressing are you?” The Columbia Journalism Review, however, released a whole different side to the website.

More importantly, Buzzfeed is known to not be as reliable as other sources. Why you may ask? Until recently, Buzzfeed never once looked into hiring any copy editors for their posts.

Now one could potentially argue that yes, our world is always advancing and adapting to new quirks. News, however, should not be altered and it’s necessary to have journalists’ not only double check their own work, but also have a professional run through and fact check the information.

This issue comes down to not only grammatical errors, but also changes made to the story after it’s been published online. An article from The Los Angeles Times discusses the dilemma and addresses the constant urge for new sites like New York Times or Associated Press to compete and see who’s first to posting the latest breaking story. 

In these cases, any sort of fact checking or confirmations can be rare as these sites are mainly worried about gaining an audience to go to their website first. 

The biggest issue with this is that most of the time, these pages are constantly making changes to their story because they have that sort of access.  With the exposure to social media nowadays, audiences can be fooled easily by reading these stories without making sure the information is accurate. From that point, stories can go viral and soon, they can be shared via Facebook and other applications without being absolutely precise.

From a journalists’ perspective, this topic is very sensitive because it is their job to provide news that is correct and error-free. It is best from an audiences point of view to simply look into what they believe is the truth. 

Columbia Journalism Review released an article discussing the best ways for a reader to determine which news providers are trustworthy. The top three criteria included a reporters desire to respond to an error in a timely manner, their consideration on ethical matters including constant following of the story, and the reporters ability to present notable features in a story. Strong characteristics for this involve maintaining an unbiased perspective and a calm attitude.

Overall, it has become a frustrating topic for the American people to consistently hear news that may seem true at first, but then soon realize that all the information presented is not necessarily accurate. 

It becomes exhausting if anything to hear different opinions from certain stories rather than having one true story published for the world to see that has been fact checked and is 100% reliable. For now, the best thing for audiences to do is check their research and make sure what they are reading is dependable and unchanging.

Offensive Advertising

Madison Massey
mm792814@ohio.edu

We've all seen them. Advertisements that seem "too good to be true." This is because unfortunately they usually are.

While the internet has made it much harder for advertisers to trick consumers, many companies still try to pass their products or services off as something that they are not. Not only is it unethical to curate false advertisements, but its also offensive.

Mcdonalds advertisements always include pictures of fresh vegetables that make it seem like they are using natural ingredients. Personally, I find it offensive that they think consumers will believe that what they are eating actually came from those ruby red tomatoes on the billboard.

When I'm eating McDonalds I know I'm eating processed chemicals that is in no way, shape, or form good for me. Do I still eat it more often that I should? Yes. I want McDonalds advertising to be transparent about their quality of food. We've all seen the videos of the pink slime that is used for their chicken nuggets, so stop advertising "all white meat chicken." Along with that, they also include enhanced photos that do not look anything like the actual product.




Source: LifeHacker.com

Another unethical issue was brought up with KFC. They were doing a fundraiser that benefitted cancer research. Many people were outraged because promoting fried chicken in order to help with a different health issue seemed very hypocritical.

It seems as if many advertising companies will do anything to try to increase sales, but that is not ethical marketing. When incorporating ethical marketing into a business plan, it includes the thoughts, feelings, and wellbeing of the consumer, also known as a "share holder."

In order to build trust with society, the public needs to believe that advertisements are legitimate. Just like journalists are not trusted because of the people that have corrupted the field, advertisers must also tread lightly in this day and age. With tools like photoshop, it is unfortunately very easy to manipulate media.

So what can we do as consumers? We can question anything that we seem unsure about. Do research. Don't sit back and let advertisers get away with it. If people do not call them out for what they are doing, no one will stop them. Unless sales go down, they will not want to listen.

So if you see an advertisement that seems unbelievable don't be afraid to accuse it of being just that.

A Crucial Time for Journalists

Madison Wickham
mw731914@ohio.edu

http://www.directzine4dems.com/957cartoons/fake-news.jpg

There has never been a bigger time for journalists to prove themselves than the present. Recently, journalists have been negatively looked at as fans of drama and over-fabricated stories. Most citizens are starting to not trust the media at all and our generation needs to be the people to fix that. We can start the revolution by speaking the truth always, even if it's controversial or boring.

Reporters do not only need to straighten up their content, but advertising agencies as well. Recently, Kentucky Fried Chicken posed as a healthy chicken company when they are anything but that. A lot of people were disappointed that KFC would put people's health at risk just to make more profit. Federal Trade Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour stated, "KFC is fully aware of our nation's struggle with obesity, yet has cynically attempted to exploit a massive health problem through deceptive advertising. Companies should not be allowed to benefit monetarily from this kind of deception, especially where the health and safety of consumers are promised". The article went on to say that it was unnecessary for KFC to even lie about their nutritional value because customers would come get the comfort food no matter what health risks are involved. Things like this cause citizens everywhere to be deceptive of everything they see in advertisements and news sources everywhere.

On another hand, journalists are trying to stick with their ethics code and report whatever disservice they discover. Recently, The New York Times published multiple articles about the brutal work environment of white-collar Amazon workers. Amazon reportedly overworks their employees by depleting their confidence and forcing them to respond to work emails late at night. Since The New York Times did it's job on being a watchdog, the article about Amazon is #1 on the most shared and most viewed lists on The New York Times' list. Since this story has had such a large following, people think that The New York Times is out to get Amazon, which is completely false. The New York Times just saw a window to create real news and went for it.

If the media is going to continue to gain trust back from citizens, it needs to do multiple things. First of all, we need to apologize for our mistakes. Next, we must make sure we are accurate when conveying information, and if we are not, we must apologize and give the best information we have. Journalists must also make sure they don't follow a story just because its a part of their political views. It's always good to present multiple positions within a story as well. Last but not least, we need to remain calm. If something catches us off guard during an interview or if something pops up on social media. Remain calm and everybody around you will calm down as well.

Again, it is important now more than every to generate genuine, non fabricated news. Society is about done with journalists and I personally do not want journalists to go away. We must show the public that we are all good people who just want to convey the truth of the world.

The Death of Honest Journalism

Mikaela McGee
mm027214@ohio.edu

"But isn't journalism a dying field?" How many times have future or aspiring journalists heard that line when they speak of their major? I know that I've heard that specific question so much that I can anticipate exactly when it's coming. And personally, I do not feel that journalism is dying. I believe journalism is being murdered.

So who is it that is responsible for the slow death that is attacking good, honest journalism? The journalists themselves! This is because journalists are proving to the world that they are unreliable, self-serving, and dishonest in their reporting. For example, too many journalists these days are willing to exaggerate their story and make up bogus quotes just to have the better article.

In my journalism class last year we watched a film on ex-journalist, Stephen Glass. In an article by the Los Angeles Times, they report that Glass, to this day, is still retracting stories that he fabricated 18 years later. This is exactly the kind of dishonesty that makes journalists hard to trust and it is by their own doing.

The dilemma journalists face is being able to be timely, but also accurate. So many times people do not verify their information because of deadline pressure or pure laziness. Moreover, when the story comes out as completely false they are forced to write a retraction and apology. While yes, we should own up to our mistakes, there are also ways we should go about preventing them. Most of the time, it doesn't take much effort, it just includes finding credible sources to verify the information.

In an article written by the Harvard Business Review the author says the U.S. media is corrupt because, "it fails to do what it claims to do, what it should do, and what society expects it to do." It goes on to say that the media engages is manipulation, myth-making, and self-interest. This opinion of the media hardly serves as good news.

We need to be productive about this. There are very fast and tough social media outlets that journalists are up against, like Twitter, but that should not stop us. Sometimes being the last one to get a story out is worth the risk because you know it is completely accurate, the sources are credible and it has been fact-checked.

Journalists need to be completely transparent when it comes to what they're reporting. By doing this they show that they have respect for the public and are not trying to manipulate them. When journalists lie and try to maneuver their way out of their own mess they are negatively impacting their reputation and credibility. It looks horrible when a journalist tries to lie their way out of it only to be caught.

The American Press Institute published an article listing 5 ways to be transparent with your audience:
1. Show the reporting and sources that support your work
2. Collaborate with your audience
3. Curate and attribute information responsibly
4. Offer disclosures and statements of values
5. Correct website and social media errors effectively

Journalists need to stop worrying about themselves and start worrying about the field that they are unknowingly killing. While, people like Donald Trump do not help the situation with his attack on the media, we can at least fight to save good journalism instead of attacking it alongside him.

Quick Journalism

Nick Niehaus
nn775014@ohio.edu

https://memacinn.wordpress.com

There's a new type of journalism, it's evident in any platform that you may read.  It didn't stem from just journalism alone, the world around journalism is what formed the "new type of journalism".

This new type of journalism, spreading as much information as you can as fast as you can.  There's pros and there's cons for what journalism does for the public today.

Pros

1. Reader has more content to go through than ever before
2. Information from one topic can be found through various platforms such as video or print.
3. Easier ways for news outlets to track how much viewership each story receives

Cons

1. Credibility
2. Credibility
3. Credibility

Ever since journalists made the switch to online media through Twitter or Snapchat or any other social media site, credibility for  certain journalists has inevitably dipped.  The numbers on what percentage the public trusts media has never been high, but it is at an all time low in the past few years.

It all stems from what I will call "quick journalism", the type of journalism where you find your story, write it up as quickly as you can and send it out for the world to see online.  It sounds great, giving an audience the quickest news they can find, but it comes with literal flaws in copy.  Journalists have been getting away with these flaws through quick journalism by having the ability to correct themselves after publishing errors.

Getting away with that is no longer acceptable, more and more people have called out journalists for errors within their print no matter the size of the mistake.  One advantage for the reader is the ability to reply directly to the publisher through Twitter, making journalists easier to criticize than ever before.

Even with all the criticism journalists receive now, the problem of credibility is very much alive.

This isn't me getting on a soapbox saying all journalists have done recently is kill the definition of journalism that we have known for so long. There are many great new aspects to news this quick type of journalism lets us find.  

There is one thing responsible for this quick journalism too, Twitter.

Almost every person I talk to ends up saying their main source of news is through Twitter. A site that has been valued at $13 billion dollars at one point.

Twitter has many great features that gives readers better information.

• Verifying accounts to let the reader pick a more credible source
• Hyperlink keywords through hashtags giving the reader more options 
• Allowing videos and links to other websites letting the reader find different platforms of information

So yes, not all change in journalism has been bad but there does need to be a mission from all journalists to make sure there is no downward trend.

Publish truthful, fact-checked information without flaws through any of the new forms of social media.  The criticism and doubtfulness readers have to journalists will diminish as credibility will rise. Everybody with the ability to publish to a large audience needs to do their part to fix the opinion the public has on journalists recently.

The Problem with Correcting Post-Publishing

Alex MacLeod
am892313@ohio.edu


The majority of news publications have the habit of making errors, publishing the story, and only correcting the errors after publication-when the story has already proliferated.  This can be problematic for many reasons.

News publications often times don't scour their work for errors because in news, timing is everything.  Journalists want to be the first to cover a topic, and therefore the most read and ideally the most popular and profitable.

Profit affects journalists more than they would like to admit.  Ethically and technically, if journalists are so committed to the truth, it shouldn't necessarily matter who is the first to publish a story.  Yet any publication would tell you that it is extremely important for them to be first. To create ground-breaking news.

Ultimately, being the first is about being the most read or viewed, and creating the most profits.

And in the race to be first, mistakes are made.  It happens often.  Typically small errors that can be overlooked, but sometimes larger errors that can mislead the nation.

Almost all journalists have made mistakes.  Today it is even more common.  Almost all newsrooms no longer have ombudsmen, and many newsrooms are under the new difficulties of losing money to the digital world, and having less time and resources.

Reporter Kathryn Schultz wrote in her Time article, "reporters increasingly resemble doctors in an understaffed emergency room, working under immense time pressure with inadequate resources."

Most journalists are very open and honest with admitting their mistakes and being transparent.  The article will be edited with the corrections highlighted, and apologies will be made.

Cartoon from https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/t/truth.asp

This system works for the religious reader, but not for everyday shufflers and social media users.  How many readers never see those corrections?  How many times was an erroneous story spread by word-of-mouth?

Things like this can only further proliferate.  Noah Tavlin explains in his Ted Talk how unverified wiki-facts can be added to a reparable news story and then later that news source can be cited as the source for that very same wiki information; creating a circle of bad facts.

Its not clear how reporters should go about solving this problem, but it starts with editors fact-checking and using only reliable sources.

Journalists have to start being more careful, because things now spread 100 times as fast in the digital world, and a correction in the next day's newspaper is no longer sufficient.

Transparency: Reconnecting with Audiences

Alexis McCurdy
am447915@ohio.edu

Photo taken from mediaaudit.com

The media: an entity that has lately been regarded by the general public as an overpowering establishment, watching society with heavy eyes. The media is being treated as an evil creature, shoveling lies into the mouths of citizens, manipulating their minds so that it tastes of truth.

Through this viewpoint, consumers of media have lost an abundance of trust in their sources. When a story is put out that contains some error of fact, or some obvious bias, audiences are quick to shame the hideous creature again because they feel as though their leader has betrayed them. They begin to question what information they can trust when truth seems so shoddy.

It is in result of this question that forces the hand to yield a new era of journalism. The era is one in which journalists begin to let the idea of transparency overshadow the obsession with objectivity.

Journalists are not able to repair the past, but they can facilitate the future. The media needs to begin to reconnect with their audience through transparency. Through this, credibility may once again be retained.

What journalists discuss and what information they choose to provide needs to be discussed in the open. Traditionally, it was discussed behind closed doors, which in turn shut audiences out from the verification process. Actively engaging the community in conversations helps them to realize their own bias, the journalist's bias, and provides them the tools to analyze through that subjectivity.

In "The News Ethics of Journalism," published by Poynter Institute, Kelly McBride noted this link between transparency and trust.

"News organizations want to be trusted advisers," McBride said. "To do that, they need to embrace radical transparency, where they explain every decision they make."

An invitation into the newsroom is like an invitation into the home. It allows the audience to see reporters at their most powerful, as the show audiences how they effectively gather credible truth. It also affords the audience an opportunity to see journalists at their most vulnerable, whether it be when reporters are forced to admit a mistake, or recognize their biases.

"If journalists are truth seekers, it must follow that they be honest and truthful with their audiences, too- that they be truth presenters," Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote in their book, "Elements of Journalism."

They continued to add,"If nothing else, this responsibility requires that journalists be as open and honest with audiences as they can about what they know and what they don't. How can you claim to be seeking truth when you're not truthful with the audience in the first place?"

This engagement of community also furthermore builds a sort of brand loyalty to the publication, as the community now feels as though they become a stakeholder in the story as well.

Going ahead, transparency is not something that should be regarded as a concrete action; it is, rather, an ongoing process. As Bill Kovach noted in a Nieman report, truth can sometimes be very muddled and subjective. Instead of trying to provide something that may never satisfy that need, journalists need transparency to continue to survive.

"The journalistic truth is also more than mere accuracy," Kovach said. "It is a sorting-out process that develops between the initial story and the interaction among the public, newsmakers and journalists over time."

Transparency is a way to start humanizing the media once again. After all, humanity is the overarching common denominator between the media and its consumers. Transparency is the first step in bridging the gap.

The Ever-Changing Truth

Micaela Marshall
mm392413@ohio.edu

Source: http://www.truthrevolt.org 

Tell the truth. Own up to your mistakes. Admit when you're wrong.

These are phrases everyone has heard time and time again. Lessons learned from experiences and sayings parents say to their kids to keep them out of trouble.

The same fundamental rules apply to journalism today. Journalists should tell the truth, own up to mistakes and admit when they are wrong.

Inevitably, that doesn't always happen.

The truth is arguably the most powerful force on the planet, and journalists hold a unique power over the truth. They have the obligation to inform the public on what is happening in the world and how it relates to their life. Journalists make decisions every day over what should matter to everyone else by creating the news. But, if you can't trust a journalist to be honest, who can you trust?

Pressure Creates Inaccuracy 

The lack of the public's trust in journalism is not new. The pressure for journalists to gain readers to generate revenue dates back to the 1890s when yellow journalism was the norm. Sensationalism and stretching the truth was part of the job if it meant selling more papers. There is and always will be the pressure to give readers what they want - even if it isn't always accurate. While the pressure to be the first to break a story and the internet have certainly changed the game...the core journalistic principle of transparency and accuracy is more important now than ever before in this era of fake news and political strife.

My mother has always told me that she was proud that I wanted to be a journalist. She told me she believed that I could become a "real" reporter who did "real" journalism with digging, fact-checking and verifying. Not someone who just published or said something the very second information came out. She told me about the "good ol' days" where journalists actually cared about presenting facts without bias and a disregard for accuracy. But what she didn't consider is that now with the internet and smartphones news is constant. The 24/7 news cycle is on full force and there is no sign of it slowing down. People want their news how they want it, where they want it and the instant they want it. No one is patient enough to wait for the six o'clock news anymore. By then, there most likely will be an entirely new breaking news story to cover.

She does present an interesting argument, however. Would the public prefer to wait to learn information until everything can be properly sourced and verified? Or would they rather know what we know as soon as we know it, and update as we learn more? It seems to be a catch 22.

The Dilemma 

If the reporter waits to publish, the story could be considered old news as other publications would have shared the information already. The impatient public may also feel cheated since they didn't know sooner. On the other hand, if the reporter publishes information with little to back it up and no sources willing to verify right away, then there is the risk of running something that isn't 100% true. The story may end up being retracted which may cause the public to lose it's trust in that reporter and/or the publication as a whole. So what is a journalist to do?

The Truth Can Change

It is important to consider that the truth changes. Is it really inaccurate/unethical for a reporter to publish a story if they earnestly believed the information was truthful? At the time of publication, it may have been. Something had to have changed in order for the story to later be considered false. Does intention matter?

This article by the DRC raises some interesting points and challenges journalists to consider some hard questions:

"Is getting the facts right the same as the truth?

Is being 'objective" the same as being truthful?

How about fairness?

Can we even agree on a common truth?"

Overall the only constant is change. It is up to journalists to decipher which truth matters most as time goes on and changes keeps occurring.

Accuracy in Online News

Hannah Miller
hm491514@ohio.edu

With the news more easily accessible then ever before, you would think as a society we would be more well-informed than ever before. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

from Mediaite

Currently, with the lack of transparency and the amount of fake news circulating, confidence in the accuracy of news has dropped to low levels. According to Gallup, only 16% of Americans have trust in news on the internet, which is less than that of print (27%) and television (24%).

What's causing this lack of trust? It could have to do with the amounts of recalled information, the articles that are edited after publication or the sites themselves.

BuzzFeed is a hugely popular company that uses many different outlets to share their media. When you think of BuzzFeed there's a good chance you think of YouTube videos, quizzes or humorous listicles. But what about news? BuzzFeed, along with other online news outlets, are working on upping their reliability game.

News is constantly being published online, and the quick turnaround can make it hard to catch every mistake. Not to mention, each news source wants to be the one to break the story. This leads to inaccurate information that is passed around faster than was once even imagined.

Marc Fisher explained this new era in journalism by saying "digital journalists countered that their way was more honest and democratic-- and quicker. If that meant presenting stories before they'd been thoroughly vetted, that was okay, because the internet would correct itself. Truth would emerge through open trial and error".

Is this an okay concept? Is it ethically and morally okay to publish information to the general public before knowing if the, possibly controversial, news is even accurate?

An article written for The New York Times by Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld was under lots of fire in 2015 for having misleading and terribly biased information. The article was named, "Inside Amazon: Wresting Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace" and focused on the almost cruel work conditions that employers of Amazon faced on a daily basis.

This was immediately rebutted by a current employee of the company, Nick Ciubotariu, who wrote his own article disproving the original article published in The Times. He started the response with his 5 simple steps on how to write a false story. They are as follows:

"Step 1: Have bias
Step 2: Find ex-employees with anecdotal stories that fit in with your bias
Step 3: Gather old stories and criticism while glossing over changes made to improve on that, and completely ignore that it's still significantly better than industry practice
Step 4: Take half-truths and spin spin spin!!
Step 5: Publish article"

Although there may never be a time when everything we see online is 100% accurate, we can hope that journalists will stick closer to ethical guidelines and work to build trust in news that is published on the internet.

Mistakes can build Credibility

Reece Patton

rp071813@ohio.edu

(advfundamentals.com)

Credibility is the key concept to good journalism. Today, news and information stories have become accessible to almost anyone in the world. Since the market has evolved, practices of the old, traditional newsroom has phased out. This means that media is in a transition period as well as journalistic practices.

The internet created a new world of possibilities for producers and consumers of news. Digital information is constantly being pushed into the public. With such an abundance of media outlets, large and small, how does the consumer choose which to believe? Options can be overwhelming but they also give us assurance in the outlets we trust.

As consumers, we listen to those who have lead us correctly in the past, but do we separate ourselves from them if they are inaccurate? This decision is viewed from all different perspectives of readers but I want to talk about the position of the journalists. A new era of journalists have been trained to create and capture more that just the written story. Expectations go further than the text. Video; photography; and social media are all factors in current journalism.

With the digital capabilities of these content creating techniques, information is reported faster. How can you be perfect and thorough when competing with speed? You can't. This is where error can strike a journalist and their context can be misinterpreted in a story.

This is where journalistic credibility is lost, right? Not exactly.

If a journalist owns his or her mistake and corrects the problem, they will be viewed as responsible. It is easy to make a mistake and dismiss it, but it takes courage to review those problems and grow for the experience. Consumers want to know that they are getting the truth. If a journalist corrects their mistakes and takes blame, the consumer will feel valued.

As transparency and credibility are essential to a journalist's identity, the major media companies may not be as worried about those subjects. Big news is big business but news and business do not mesh in the terms of shared ethics. There is a blurry middle ground that has yet to be defined with the digital age. The industry has moved toward personal devices, but these techniques do not generate big revenue.

Every website we search, whether for products, entertainment, or even news; advertisements follow. So many deceptive schemes and practices have been developed to make people think that what they are looking at is the most important content or product. Unfortunately, advertisements bring more money to media companies than the journalist's stories. At the end of the day, a journalists has much less power and assurance because if they write a story that puts their media company in danger with another corporate power, money will stay and people will go because times are hard.

If news is going to remain trusted, journalists must communicate with their readers. This also means that consumers should be curious and check multiple sources. Fact checking is becoming an important part of the media as well as those who want to disprove the media but humans always make mistakes. If a journalist can catch their mistakes and be transparent in revealing their truth, they will build credibility with consumers.

How Digital Media Outlets Can Prove They're Reliable

Rachel O'Morrow
rm118414@ohio.edu

The word integrity goes hand in hand with the word reliability. Integrity describes the quality of being honest and reliability describes good quality performance and ability to be trusted. Stated in the Los Angeles Times, a recent Ipsos study found that only 10 percent of those surveyed believed the news industry 'acts with integrity'. This is unfortunate; however, there are ways digital media outlets can prove they act with integrity and can be trusted to provide the public with accurate information.

Technology is rapidly changing and millions of people around the world have multiple connected devices such as, smart phones, tablets and laptops. This makes digital media available right at their fingertips. All the digital media platforms seek for readers to engage with their news, but readers want to engage with truth. It's important for digital media to build a positive reputation by correcting mistakes, accurately sourcing facts, and stating when there's not enough information to prove a fact.

Video from YouTube.com

One specific way digital news media can be reliable to readers is by sending alerts for stories that have been updated with more information or when a mistake is corrected. This not only provides the reader with correct news, but it demonstrates that the news outlet is holding themselves accountable for mistakes. Eventually, the digital news outlet would have an increase in loyal consumers. These consumers would then be the ones to share their accurate news across digital platforms.

The SPJ Code of Ethics describes that the media must "acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently" and "explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly." Although many digital news consumers gather their news from social media, receiving alerts for corrected information from one online news outlet could allow the consumer to completely rely on the news outlet information in the future. This gains trust and a positive relationship between the online news outlet and the consumer.

In my opinion, if a news outlet highlighted their mistake and explained what they did to give me better information I would respect the news outlet more. It demonstrates that the news outlet cares to provide truth to readers and will take responsibility of any negative repercussions for putting out inaccurate information in the first place. 

Taking the step to admit a mistake followed by a correction builds good reputation. These days it's difficult for consumers to know what news is real because of sharing capabilities on social media, as well as digital media making it easy for people to create their own false content. For the news outlet to expose their mistake in a story means that the journalists are continually checking their facts. 

Overall, digital media and news have the power to reduce the lack of trust and reliability consumers have towards the news industry. Digital media provides an ultimate sharing platform for news. So, the news industry must admit when they're wrong to decrease the intake of fake news and in turn, produce generations who won't ever know what reliable, transparent news is. 

With a Grain of Salt

Maria Meece
mm162214@ohio.edu

Media these days needs to be taken with skepticism. It is sad, but it is true. There are outside sources that mess with the media and cause people to not believe anything that the media says. According to Columbia Journalism Review, only 32% of Americans believe that the media is true. That is astounding! This is the lowest it has ever been in American history. Americans have a right for feeling this way. The media has failed this past election. Americans feel cheated. Americans want to trust what the media has to say because that is one of the only ways to consume news.

Why is it important to be transparent? 

Transparency is key. Truth really should be simple but unfortunately, America has people that have their own agenda and think it is okay to mess with the way news is consumed.

What does this show?

Honestly, this shows a huge fault in our system. If anyone can make a website and write whatever they want then post it and it can go national, then yes, why isn't everyone making fake news? It is so easy to fake the "truth." The American people will believe whatever is on their Facebook feed. Schools need to be teaching young Americans how to read needs and how to identify fake news. This could help immensely.

Why do we want the truth?

We want the truth because it is our right as Americans. According to the New York Times author, Catherine R. Squire's article, "Young Black People See the Double Standard," it is hard to trust an institution that ignores you. The media right now has one goal, and that is to make people trust them again. What is America without truthful news? Maybe that is normal...

Gallup Research Organization

This is a chart explaining how Americans trusting media has decreased over the past couple years. It has decreased drastically since the 1990s. It is hard to believe that Americans don't trust the media this much.

Truth is so important right now to the journalist. A journalist needs to gain the American people back on their side. Facebook was a place where fake news was posted more often than not. Maybe Facebook needs to get a more regulated system. At least with what news is posted on people's walls. This could help out with decreasing fake news and help journalist get back into Americans good favor.

The media needs to make some drastic moves in able to get the American back on their side. I don't think that will happen for a while. Especially while our president is posting whatever he wants to on his Twitter wall. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe it isn't. It is definitely not regulated news. Very truthful since it is coming from our President.

As many are saying about media, "long live the media, it is dead."

Maybe a new source of information will start to become something in America. New things are always made every day.

We Just Want the Truth

Sarah Olivieri
so275713@ohio.edu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghc0RsIFz0k

   Where do we go and who do we trust if we can't trust the news? With each day the left and the right side politically becoming more polarized and seemingly more and more news stations picking a side, the truth and we as people are taking a major hit. This is a significant problem and one that is causing many to ask why this is happening and to demand for the truth to be brought back in our to day-to-day lives.

The Importance of Bringing Truth Back

  The birth of what soon became know as Pizzagate began on a seemingly harmless Sunday when a male entered Comet, a Washington D.C. Ping-Pong bar and pizzeria and opened fire on those inside. Though everyone was lucky enough to escape unharmed, this situation could have ended quite differently.

  The 28-year-old man traveled all the way from North Carolina after hearing a conspiracy that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was running a child-trafficking brigade out of said pizza shop.

  This conspiracy was, of course, just one of the many fake news stories that have come out pre and post election season.

  A general consensus from critics is that the fake news stories are so outlandish that no person in their right mind would believe them. Unfortunately it takes an incident like the infamous pizzagate to change these people's minds, which sadly is often too late.

How to Bring the Truth Back

   This question has been something news stations have been trying to tackle since the invention of fake news. The one general consensus that has come out of seemingly all newsrooms is to be more transparent in our coverage of the news.

   If you are not familiar with the meaning of transparency in the media I believe that NPR's ethics handbook put its best:
 
   "To inspire confidence in our journalism, it is critical that we give the public the tools to evaluate our work. We reveal as much as we practically can about how we discover and verify the facts we present. We strive to make our decision-making process clear to the public, especially when we find ourselves wrestling with tough choices. We disclose any relationships, whether with partners or funders, that might appear to influence our coverage."

    The reason this definition is so great is because in a changing world of blatant bias in media coverage and fake news, viewer, subscribers and all readers are left to question if a specific or any news outlet is safe to trust. However, by being completely open about fact checking, sources and the decision-making process slowly not only the truth but also trust in media, slowly begins to resurface.

A Better Tomorrow

   It is certain that nothing is going to happen over night but we can begin the journey to the right path.

   As journalist we need to work everyday on bringing transparency to our readers, to set our political agendas and opinions aside as present the mere, unedited truth. The stronger and more solid the facts and research of the facts that we attain are, the harder it is for anyone to poke holes in it, to claim falsity or bias.

  As readers and viewers of the news, research stories you read or see. View stories and opinions from someone else's eyes. If you see media that doesn't match up with the truth, call news organizations out, make them better at presenting information the way it needs to be presented: objectively.

  We can't turn our back on the news. There are still high quality journalists still out there who, like you, just want the truth.