Social Media and Fake News

Xiaoyun Ma

xm445015@ohio.edu

courtesy hastac.org

The print readership is declining while trust in the news media is at an all-time low. However, the digital news world boasts about 5,000 digital news sector jobs which focus on engaging their audience through social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, according to Pew Research Center.

“In the digital age, it is easier than ever to publish false information, which is quickly shared and taken to be true,” said Katherine Viner, the new editor-in-chief in a long-form Guardian editorial-cum-mission statement.

Through the wireless internet, people have seen the world more than they were used to seeing, not only disclosing new and often uncomfortable truths, but also undermining the traditional concept of truth. Because of social media, everyone could have live streaming his or her stories on Periscope or Facebook, which traditional journalism such as Radio or Newspapers has not done before.

The digital technologies have reinforced the citizen journalism and empowered potent truths to emerge from the swamp through an unfiltered lens. The prominent instances of citizen videos could be traced back to the 1963 Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination and the event of Arab Spring.

“First-hand witnesses cannot see the big picture,” said Yves Eudes, a reporter at French-based broadsheet Le Monde. “They’re not trained to understand whether what they’re seeing is relevant to the big picture or to see what really happens.” Unlike traditional journalism where it’s relatively safe to presume the news circulated is accurate. Through apps like Twitter’s Periscope, anyone could record and have live videos anything, and they post it as fact. The primary goal of journalism is to be fair and objective, but the story angle and the excess excitement that citizen journalists on social media provide could be discriminated and narrow.

The live-streaming used to rely on the satellites and professional television cameras. Nowadays, the generalization of the smartphones has made “going viral” as easy as clicking on the apps. None the less, the live-streaming incidents of police shootings and the suicide of teenagers have raised the questions about the accountability and ethics code of the digital technologies.

Philando Castile, a black motorist, was fatally shot by the Minnesota police officer. Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who broadcast the shooting’s aftermath on Facebook. The case had involved the racial tension and the violence, which is arguable in public debate on whether should using a moral filter to content. Since the live-videos social media has gradually become an important source for mainstream news outlets, it might be necessary to censor the unappropriated content such as discrimination, nudity, and violence.

On the other hand, since everyone could have self-reporting, people nowadays post fabricated stories or share the link of clickbait without even take a close look. In this tightly connected world, no matter how significant advancement the technology could bring to the truth industry, fact-checking and re-checking is more necessary than ever before. One of the crucial features of technology in the journalism is low cost and speed, which could be a double-edged sword. With the fast speed and zero costs, gossip websites like TMZ and are filled with either fake news which based on either groundless rumors or complete fabrication.

No matter how overwhelmed transformation the newest technology could bring to the journalism, the news reporting is always about seeking and reporting truth objectively.

Transparency and the Modern Day Journalist

Sam Smith
ss998813@ohio.edu

Since the beginning of journalism, the core values have remained the same. Journalists must remain honest, truthful, and transparent. This being said, as time has gone on and technology developed, these core values are being presented through new, alternative outlets.

In their book the New Ethics of Journalism, editors Kelly McBride and Tom Rosenstiel state that, “while acknowledging that getting the facts right remains journalism’s core function – and that includes trying to get at ‘the truth about the fact’, as the Hutchins Commission put it in 1947 – much of how we discern and articulate the truth is changing.”

Though the end results remain the same, the means of obtaining and interpreting those results has drastically changed. More voices, more materials, and more platforms are flooding the brain of the modern consumer. Before the 21^st century just two channels, print and television, dominated news. Through these two channels money could be generated through advertising and independence was established.  Because news was generated from a distance, the public consumer rarely questioned the transparency of the news they were receiving. That has all changed.

Below is a video of Tom Rosenstiel’s Tedx Talk on the future of Journalism.

The New Truth

In today’s media landscape, the flow of communication flows so much more than one way. Instead of the consumer simply receiving and interpreting news, new outlets allow for the consumer to easily question the information they are receiving. Social media, forums, and the overall digital movement has made for a more open interpretation of news information by the general public. This adaptation has put more pressure on independent news organizations to emphasize the transparency of their news. The sources they use, information they publish, and evidence included in reporting can all be questioned immediately. Credibility has become a cornerstone of the public’s demand for their news.

Is This Good or Bad?

Deciding if this new stage of journalism is positive or negative is an opinionated question, but evidence suggests that this movement is one of progression. As previously stated, the foundation of journalism was to administer the truth in an honest and transparent manner to the public. Through these new forms of communication, the public has garnered more power as critics of the news they receive.

The modern public is no longer just on the receiving end of their news. Now, they are a part of it. New platforms of communication have made for an entire new community filled with reporters and the public. Social media allows the public to question, comment, share, and explore the news they receive immediately. This new community aspect, if utilized correctly, can help to create a positive relationship between reporters and the public.

What Should Journalists Do?

The modern day journalist should have one main priority in response to this new era of reporting. Transparency. Transparency is the utmost of importance when serving the truth to this new public. It is important for journalists to put themselves in the shoes of the public they are serving, question themselves, and seek out every opportunity possible they can to be transparent with the public.

For more of Rosenstiel’s thoughts on the future of journalism, feel free to read his Washington Post article “Five myths about the future of journalism”

Is Drone Use too Invasive?

Mikaela McGee
mm027214@ohio.edu

                                                                  Gadget Flow Inc.

Within the last few years, there has been an increasing use of drones throughout the world. Many people use drones for recreational use because, well it can be very entertaining to fly them around and take amazing pictures from heights only someone in a plane or helicopter could reach. Drone accessibility is on the rise due to them becoming more affordable as well. As of 2016, consumer drones could be bought for as cheap as $40. With drones becoming more widespread and accessible, there have been many ethical questions that have arisen.

The ability to take pictures from the sky is a very powerful thing when it comes to the journalism field. But with that comes abuse, especially in the forms of safety and privacy. Why? Because there is a chance that what is captured on the drone's camera may invade someone's privacy. When journalists fly drones they are not prone to asking the people that they take pictures of for permission.

There is also the question about private and public property because air spaces are included. When people are flying drones, many of these questions are ignored and that is not good journalism.

When Cyclone Pam tore through Vanuatu in March 2015, 17,000 buildings were destroyed or damaged and 65,000 people were displaced from their homes. Journalists used drones to fly other the devastation and capture photos of the destruction. But, was this right? Due to the roofs of many houses being torn off, the drones could have captured very private moments between the families residing in the houses.

So how do we as journalists and drone users ethically deal with this issue? According to the Professional Society of Drone Journalists they use a code of ethics that ranks values from highest to lowest.

  

Matthew Schroyer, DroneJournalism.org

The list goes: newsworthiness, safety, sanctity of law and public spaces, privacy, and traditional journalism ethics. Using this code journalists should be able to gage when it is appropriate to release the images captured with the drone. 

Pointer recently held a workshop where they trained 325 journalists and journalism educators on how to safely and ethically fly a drone. In their published article, one of the important points that they make is "would you do that if you were capturing the same image on the ground?" Meaning, if you were to peer over a fence, look into a window, or go on private property, how would you be able to justify capturing the same image while airborne? You wouldn't.

While currently there is a voluntary code of conduct used amongst the humanitarian community, there is not a set code for private and commercial entities. I believe that a code of conduct for flying drones could only help journalists because it would help us be ethical and respectful towards the public. 

This is very important because unethical journalism can only be fought with accurate and ethical journalism. Therefore, while it is okay for journalists to use drones to take outstanding photos and document events, we should not be able to take it too far as to intrude in the lives of others. 

Drones: Do Their Capabilities Need Restricting?

Gabbey Albright

ga210814@ohio.edu

Photo retrieved from the Columbia Journalism Review

People have been talking about drones for a while now. How futuristic these small flying decisive sound- literally when they whiz over your head. Additionally, how popular they have become. 2.5 million were sold in 2016 according to the Fortune magazine. But what is their purpose?

Some people choose to buy drones strictly for recreational use. With other technological devices becoming increasingly similar just in different models, the drone is something that has really stood out. It’s an easy thing to put on any birthday or Christmas list and can be a toy for all ages. After all, it is pretty fascinating to be able to see your location from the viewpoint of the clouds. One can choose from many different brands and model types. These models either come equipped with a camera or without one. Usually, the better quality the camera and the more footage it can store- the more expensive the product.

What if drones are used for more than just a toy?

So what about these drones with lenses? Now they are being utilized by people for more than recreational use. Media companies and news organizations have realized that these drones have massive potential. They are capable of capturing some pretty high-quality footage and are much less expensive than a helicopter ride.

This sounds great, right? But what's the glitch? Well, drones are virtually undetectable besides their little buzzing noise their little propellers create and can record practically anything. This can hold an issue for debating what is public and private property- which airspace can be both.

Konstantin Kakaes from the Columbia Journalism Review mentioned that journalist and first responders ran into an ethical dilemma after the Cyclone, palm, went through Vanuatu in the South Pacific in 2015. Since the cyclone ripped off most of the affected areas roofs, the drones were able to see into their homes. The problem arose in deciding what footage was able to be used. Technically, their homes are their private property and that is protected.

Is an Ethical Code needed?

This dilemma had led “many in the humanitarian community (to) adopted a voluntary code of conduct that lays out some guidelines about how to fly drones safely and gather information in a way that respects people’s privacy”.

Although, there is no official code of conduct for the other type of organizations that are filling the airspace with drones. Many media organizations are resisting any sort of regulation.

Their argument here is backed up by the fact that anywhere in public, one can take a picture. If someone is in a public area in the United States they have the full expectation that someone could take a photograph of them. Therefore, any photograph taken in public in the United States may be published without the people in the photograph permission.

This fact prompts drone users to ask why new rules would be created simply because of this new technology at play. Arguably, there were capabilities of retrieving the same footage that drones are getting now, it was just much more costly so it was much rarer. Now, people can virtually be recorded at any given time someone wants to fly a drone over them.

Technology

Diamond Jeune
dj415715@ohio.edu

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mtv-international-debut-music-themed-show-clickbait-997601

Clickbait is something that is described as not everything you see is what you get. In clickbait you are only provided information that is appealing to the eyes. Meaning that not all of the information that you are getting is in fact true.

Clickbait's main location is through social media. One way to tell what clickbait actually is by simply clicking on it and seeing what it is about. They are either hit or miss. Focus on how long people spend time reading an article away from their social media site, if they read it they found something time worthy, if they remove it its because it wasn't worthwhile.

Clickbait are often considered to be original content that is the reason why there is no problem with sharing it online for your friends to see.

Examples of clickbait stories are 1. Science says lasting relationships came down to two basic traits.

This article is marketed towards those who are married not those where in relationships and the two traits were kindness and generosity and how to show them to your spouse.

Another clickbait example is What Makes Women Attractive.  The six traits are considered to be women who have high voices, healthy hair, smiling, less makeup, red clothes, and larger waist to hip ratio. Rather then being kind and loving being the most attractive things.

What you see in clickbait is honestly what you don't get.

With the advancements in technology you have to be careful in what you choose to consume and take part in. Because often times just because things are out there doesn't mean it is all good.

Live streaming can be fun and wholesome but it depends on what you are sharing.

For example a group of teens had live streamed a man who is disabled drowning and instead of helping him or calling for help they just watched him die.

Another live stream gone wrong occurs when an 18-year-old is driving under the influence
and she tragically kills her sister.

These two different incidences show the drastic and horrific stuff that occurs in the world and unfortunately it was documented.

Clickbait Fishes To Deceive Readers

Emily O'Flynn
ef856814@ohio.edu

Who are we supposed to trust anymore? Trust in the media is at an all-time low. The media is constantly criticized by leaders in today's political climate for distributing "fake news."

In a The Washington Post article, a 26-year-old explains how he has risen on his website's platform to profit from posting his own opinions. "You have to trick people into reading the news," said Paris Wade, writer for LibertyWritersNews.com. The articles written for the website take about ten minutes to compose. Elaborating more on the strategy behind receiving clicks, Ben Goldman says, "Our audience does not trust the mainstream media. It's definitely easier to hook them in with that." Less-informed individuals are being reeled into a trap, believing that the mainstream media is evil and trusting less credible news sources.

Some believe it should be left to social media platforms to filter out fake news with real news. According to Joshua Benton of Nieman Lab, Facebook has capabilities to filter the news. "One simple one would be to hire editors to manage what shows up in its Trending section - one major way misinformation gets spread. Facebook canned its Trending editors after it got pushback from conservatives; that was an act of cowardice, and since then, fake news stories have been algorithmically pushed out to millions with alarming frequency."

Image via theodysseyonline.com

What it all comes down to is personal responsibility. If you feel that you have fallen victim to a fake news story based on an intriguing headline, worry no more! Below are three tips to spot clickbait before you even click on it:

Sounds unbelievable
Have you ever seen a headline that looked too good to be true? Odds are, it's not real news. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the new trend in journalism is trolling readers through headlines. "Only a small percentage of people read the stories they are sharing. But the more something is shared, the more people will see it, the more will click. As long as it doesn't completely destroy brand credibility, hate-sharing - when someone broadcasts an enraging link to followers - is just as valuable for a site as sincere, thoughtful interplay with its work," says Kira Goldenberg.

You haven't heard of the news source
Although there are plenty of reputable publications you haven't heard of before, there are some forms of media that purposefully want to trick you into believing certain things. Before clicking on the article, research who is releasing the article. The following are questions you can ask yourself when researching the website: What are their sources? Does it say somewhere that it is a parody account? Does the website seem to lean in a certain direction politically?

At the end of the day, we are individually responsible for the news we consume. We are responsible for the news that we share with others via word of mouth or social media. We are responsible for the repercussions of sharing particular news. I don't trust my friends on social media to check their own sources, but I believe in myself to make educated decisions about what information is accurate and worth sharing.

Technology: Saving or Destroying Journalism?

Emily Finton
ef385214@ohio.edu

"Journalism is dead." "There are no jobs in journalism." "Journalism is a dying field."

These are just a few of the common phrases people love to say when on topic. Journalism is absolutely NOT dying, it's instead becoming more innovative.

Innovation means creating new methods. This doesn't say whether it's good or bad, it just means that there are changes occurring. New innovative techniques in the journalism field are intriguing, and the technology is state-of-the-art.

A method that has somewhat always been used as a marketing technique is used for drawing attention to headlines through social media. I have fallen for it, maybe we all have once or twice. A catchy headline that draws an emotional response from its audience. It has become so easy for social media users to read a headline, think they know what the content is from only that, and keep scrolling through their timeline.

Numerous studies have been done to prove how headlines influence the attention of their readers, just as the Columbian Journalism Review stated in their article "Stop trolling your readers." Forbes showed another example of this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2016/08/08/59-percent-of-you-will-share-this-article-without-even-reading-it/#43345aa82a64

Social media sites such as Facebook have been doing their best to make sure their platform stays as honest as possible, but they cannot control each user's content. This is something that was a driving force through the election of President Trump. Whether it was fake news or or spam, readers were and still are being fooled. We are drawn in by our interests and people are making money off our clicks to headlines that may be completely inaccurate information. This is what tarnishes the name of journalism and makes journalists have to work harder.

Think Before You Click

Hallie Kile
hk649314@ohio.edu


Misleading Headlines and Fake News

Journalism is certainly not dead. It is, in fact, very much alive. Authentic journalism, however, may be in great danger.

In the past year, the term "fake news" has become a highly politicized topic in the media. Despite its political connotations, however, the issue is a very real problem for legitimate journalism.

Social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter are common hubs for fake news articles, often characterized by exciting headlines and bizarre claims. The more eye-catching the title, the greater the difficulty in resisting the "click."

Photo via Pixabay

The faux-news trend has become so prominent that Facebook launched the "Journalism Project" in an effort to combat the level of misinformation being shared on its platform. The company has even begun offering education programs at various journalism schools in order to fight back against online news illiteracy. The social media platform's extensive efforts prove that clickbait tactics are much more than a short-lived fad, but rather, a widespread issue for online media.

The issue of bogus journalism poses an immense threat to its authentic adversary—credible media. Anyone with a phone or laptop can become a "journalist" in an instant. These fraudulent individuals craft headlines laced with sensation and scandal in an attempt to make a quick buck.

Using social media to target viewers, phony journalists publish false stories and advertisements with the intention of earning cash. The problem is, these tactics are wildly successful for some.

In the case of "new yellow journalists" Paris Wade and Ben Goldman of LibertyWritersNews.com, two ordinary men made upwards of $40,000 per month with their clickbait efforts. That value tops median yearly salary of journalists in the United States, according to a recent PayScale estimate.

Clickbait by the Numbers: How is Authentic Journalism Affected?

As the internet becomes more crowded with fictitious claims, professional journalists struggle to find credible information. In its 2017 Global Social Journalism Study, Cision found that "90 percent of respondents use social media for work at least once a week and 48 percent could not successfully complete their work without social media."

Cision's study also revealed the breadth of the fake news dilemma, as 51 percent of respondents considered the issue a "serious problem."

With so much bait squeezing its way into advertisements all across the internet, it's hard to resist. The empty promises of weight-loss solutions and dirt-cheap designer brands beg to be viewed, and we inevitably wonder if just maybe the claims are valid.

According to Forbes, clickbait schemes are easily identifiable, with the top Facebook headlines including phrases such as "will make you," "this is why" and "can we guess." The site dubs these terminologies as "clickbait hallmarks," due to their effectiveness.

So next time you are considering clicking on a story claiming to provide you with rapid anti-aging tactics, think again. Maybe check your news app and peruse the quality news credible journalists have worked so tirelessly to provide. You'll be happy you did!

Journalist to Clickbait Troll

Jaida Sterling
js528714@ohio.edu


Trolling has been a controversial part of the internet for over a decade now.

It has sparked conversations and experiments on what makes a troll and how these trolls have affected the way media outlets do things.

It has also become a topic of concern since trolling has become a technique used when writing article headlines in the eyes of media consumers.

The Conversation wrote an article –– "Our experiments taught us why people troll" –– that discussed what makes a troll and things like how the ongoing prevalence of 'trolling' is causing some websites to take away their comment sections altogether.

In their study, they recruited 667 participants, and found that the first factor that seems to influence trolling is "a person's mood," and that "people put into negative moods were much more likely to start trolling."

Another factor mentioned was the context of the discussion, "If a discussion begins with a 'troll comment,' then it is twice as likely to be trolled by other participants later on..."

While these two factors help a little with the understanding of how trolling begins and continues with everyday internet users, the article did not explain why journalists use trolling as a technique to pull readers in.

This 'trolling' used to pull readers in is known as clickbait.

Clickbait is defined as "something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest," according to Merriam Webster Online.

 (http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1317527-clickbait)

The Guardian posted an article anonymously written by a journalist –– "The secret life of a clickbait creator: lousy content, dodgy ads, demoralized staff" –– that told the story of this journalist's personal experience with participating in the 'clickbait' culture or the "viral content world" (as they put it) and how they got into that type of writing in the first place.

The anonymous writer talked about losing journalism jobs and writing opportunities to those who had better qualifications from reputable institutions.

The writer said this was what "forced" them into working for a popular viral content site.

Many other writers and journalists might be feeling like they have no other options than to work for people and sites that encourage clickbait headlines with the journalism field getting more and more competitive.

Although one might feel "forced" to join in this trend, The Kensington Chronicles gave five reasons why clickbait is bad journalism:

1. It is manipulative
2. Its outrageous claims influence reader opinions
3. It represents the death of expertise
4. Its content is not king
5. It damages your credibility as a news source

Even though many perceive click baiting and trolling as annoying and bad journalism, people will continue using it as a method to draw readers in.

In this day and age, if you are a journalist it would not be surprising if you became one of those widely known (and disliked) clickbait trolls.

New Rules

Alex MacLeod
am892313@ohio.edu

Photo from Vedosoft.com

In a world where technology is continuously changing, industries change too.  Recently journalism has been an industry that has seen huge technological advantages combined with a changing digital landscape.

Reporters are now easily reporting alone, acting as their own camerapersons.  Droids and 360 cameras have revolutionized photography and how we report.

The digital world has caused the pure number of publications to sky-rocket, and for anyone to act as a reporter.  They have allowed consumers to get most of the media they need for free, causing reputable news outlets to use clickbait and misleading headlines to get the views that drive ad revenue.

Things are changing, and they are changing fast.

When someone like Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel of the National Press Photographer's Association, says that "we should not be creating new laws based solely on the fact that it involves a new technology."

This attitude is outdated and misguided.  With each new technology, laws should be upgraded and revised.  This is the attitude that has allowed the same laws that governed long rifles that took minutes to prepare one shot to govern assault rifles that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a single minute.

It's this attitude that has allowed online surveillance and tracking to go largely unrestricted for so long.

In an MIT Technology Review article, Vivek Wadhwa discusses that although interviewers can't ask someone about their religion, sexual preference or political views, they can filter interviewees out by looking at their Facebooks.

Wadhwa said "these regulatory gaps exist because laws have not kept up with advances in technology. The gaps are getting wider as technology advances more rapidly... the same is happening in every domain that technology touches."

While technology is advancing so rapidly, it is extremely difficult to create laws quickly enough to keep up, but entities need to at least try.  Even if laws aren't changing fast enough, the journalism industry should be quick to create ethical codes and guidelines.  Individuals should constantly be questioning the ethics of everything that they do, especially when it comes to new technology.

"We haven't come to grips with what is ethical, let alone with what the laws should be, in relation to technologies such as social media," said Wadhwa.

That is why it is so vital that journalists be proactive.

Laws simply won't catch up in time.  According to a CNN article, Andrea Matwyshyn, a professor who tracks the intersection of law and technology, says that laws are generally at least 5 years behind technology as it is developing.

There is a constant shift happening before our eyes, and those who hold views similar to Osterreicher need to consider how changes in technology are in fact a key reason that laws must be changed.

How New Technology is Changing the Face of Journalism

Kelly Barrett
Kb732613@ohio.edu

In the current age of media and technology, people have access to almost anything with just a click. This includes anything drones can captures, to pictures and videos of violent crime or live streaming protests. It can give the public completely new perspectives that haven't been able to be down before but this can either be a good or a bad thing and often highly controversial.

The positive viewpoint is hope that the right image will enact a needed change in the wold, according to The Washington Post.  Although heart wrenching photographs or war, brutality and violence have been around for a long time, the immediacy of media today is something that could provoke change.

In terms of drones, the invasion of them often sparks controversy. Privacy, accountability, and transparency are ethics that need to followed by not only, governmental drone users, but non-governmental drone users as well. But with anything, there are still controversial views.

For news organizations, the rationale for not restricting drone use is simple. “You don’t need a person’s permission to photograph them when they are out in public,” says Osterreicher. The rules should not be any different, he says, if a photographer is using a camera attached to a drone: “We should not be creating new laws based solely on the fact that it involves a new technology.”

Something else that comes into play is virtual reality. Virtual reality is a computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors.
This is technology that allows viewers to feel like they are truly experiencing the news rather than being told the news. But this also means that everyone involved must willingly be, and know that is more vulnerable than traditional news. In terms of viewers, it allows them to be totally immersed in something they would otherwise not have access to.

"Jenna Pirog feels that the ultimate goal of VR journalism shouldn’t differ from The New York Times’ bedrock goal of providing facts and letting the viewers build their own interpretations." 
However, because this is something so new, we are still learning so much. As more advancements are being made, virtual reality cameras are becoming more accessible to newsrooms, I believe it will become more and more common as well as useful. 

Guidelines for new media and technology are being put into place but because these things are so new and complex, guidelines are not going to solve all issues. Journalists, as always, are expected to uphold and follow their ethical guidelines and values. New technology is a pivotal outlet that can create massive positive change for journalism but if it falls into the wrong hands it could lead to disaster. 

1. 
   

Sharing Without Caring: The Trouble With Clickbait

Janie Dulaney
jd540914@ohio.edu

It all started a year or two ago when you were scrolling through Facebook one afternoon, when suddenly you come across an article that someone you barely talked to in high school, but are still Facebook friends with shared, "Why the Notebook 2 is being filmed in Akron, Ohio: Ryan Gosling speaks!" No way, you think to yourself, could it be? When you click on it, it takes you to a low budget, low quality website with a plethora of ads that looks like your 15-year old brother could have set it up. No Notebook being filmed in Akron in this lifetime. Fast forward to the end of 2017. We'd survived the year of "fake news" but are still battling with it everyday as journalists. Obviously, you know that articles like that are clickbait, and you can easily laugh to yourself while scrolling to find your weekly horoscope, but what happens when news organizations themselves are using catchy and sometimes a little misleading of headlines to get views? Where are the ethics in that?

http://www.stateofdigital.com/current-metrics-clickbait/ 

When the New York Times columnist published his "Brunch is for Jerks" opinion piece way back in 2014, he was met with tons of engagement and shares, and garnered a lot of attention from other media, including a cook off between two chefs and a humorous pushback from Bustle.  The use of "trolling" their readers, as Kira Goldenberg described it for the Columbia Journalism Review, is a more high profile way to "bait" readers into "clicking" on your story. In other words, sophisticated clickbait. If young people who love to travel to their nearest First Watch on Sunday mornings and drink kale tonics while eating an oatmeal bowl see that their Aunt Shelby shared an article called "Brunch is for Jerks" on their Facebook feed, the possibility of sharing it with a response of their own is probably pretty high-- even without reading it themselves.

In fact, studies show that an astonishing "59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked: in other words, people appear to retweet news without ever reading it." This means, when a journalists picks a headline for a story about peoples bias towards certain demographics of voters that reads "Should Single Women be Allowed to Vote?" it will certainly create buzz. Things like this go viral for a few reasons, but one is worth noting in it's relevance to this situation; if someone sees this, gets angry, and shares it, the author can always defend itself. If an article is simply using a catchy tagline that only shares one part of the story, the author can clap back. After all, it's the person who failed to actually read the story's fault, right?

Sharing an article about brunch may seem harmless, sure it's clickbait technically, but who is it really hurting in the scheme of things? Well, in this day and age where the very utterance of the world journalism sends many random family members at your family reunion through a tailspin ranging from low job security to an untrustworthy profession, it is quite simple. Journalism is taking many hits from the outside, can it really afford to be criticized for cheapened headlines and page-view desperation?

The Truth in Titles

Michaela Leach

ml456913@ohio.edu

Image credited to bigthink.com. 

In this technologically driven day and age, an intriguing and appealing title is an author's first, and sometimes only, opportunity to draw in an audience. In articles that are shared online, readers are not given the opportunity to skim an the content as they would be in traditional printed media, but rather decide whether they are interested or not based on the title.

With that in mind, authors are taking a new approach to creating headlines. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the newest trend in headlines is "flat-out trolling readers." Authors have become so focused on increased views, clicks and shares that they create headlines that appeal to readers and lead them to a story that may not even address the claim of the title.

In an article about the power of misleading headlines, the Washington Examiner's Becket Adams explains that headlines "carry a lot of weight." He goes on to discuss that headlines either attract or turn off readers, depending on their views. This is frustrating, Becket says, noting that if people actually went on to read stories like this, they would find that the headline was misleading and that the actual truth within the story is much different.

With advanced technology internet accessibility, practically anyone can be a "journalist" simply for authoring an opinionated article. Authors have learned what type of content has the capability to go viral, and from there, have developed a strategy to receive the views and shares that they desire.

But what kind of content is it exactly that has the capability of blowing up online? Typically, it is the content that is headlined with violent, chaotic and aggressive wording that people are attracted to, according to Ben Goldman, a writer for an online forum called Liberty Writers. Goldman explained to Terrence McCoy of the Washington Post his approach to writing for the Pro-Donald Trump website.

Goldman explained that internet authors have developed a strategy for writing for specific audiences. He explained that the national division that has occurred in light of the last presidential election, it is even simpler to attract the desired audience through aggressively worded rumor headlines that belittle opposing ideals. The articles will sometimes end with encouragement to share the article and comment, further continuing the conversation and expanding the audience outreach.

The problem with this approach to journalism is that some authors have stopped writing for the sake of reporting and rather focus on increasing their shares and views. With stories that are written simply to be clicked, the debate and conversation over fake news that is so prevalent in our lives within this current political climate has only increased. This fake news that is constantly shared on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are only pushing our already divided society even further apart.

The only way to combat the plethora of fake news that comes out each day is with an increased dose of good journalism. Good journalism does exist, but not many readers seek it out, leaving its value clouded. It is a good journalists' duty to report the truth and our duty as members of society to have faith in their reports and trust the mainstream media.

The Dangers of Click Bait and Trolling

Jordan Klimack
jk318014@ohio.edu

As an aspiring journalist, it seems to be a peculiar time in the industry. Trust in journalists seems to be lower than ever. Fake news seems to be spread quicker than ever. Stories are getting published at an unprecedented rate. Is click bait to blame?

There is no questioning from a financial standpoint the benefits of click bait headlines. But, from an ethical standpoint, how do these people sleep at night? In the community of journalism, journalists should be joining forces to make the profession a place of strong-ethical practice, where trust between the reader and writer is acknowledged and appreciated.

Journalism is a profession where the utmost importance should be placed on truth, not making a profit off of your readers--by any means necessary. Click bait headlines are a true threat to the integrity of journalism and the profession as a whole.

Click bait headlines or "trolling" are particular dangerous because we live in a society where social media has become the main source for news and information. The newspaper industry has rapidly declined in the digital and social media era. The problem is that social media sites are filled with click bait and trolling headlines. If people are spending majority of their time on social media, how many click bait and trolling headlines and ads are they clicking on? Subsequently, the people putting out the click bait or fake news are generating profit off of each click--it's a real problem.

Click Bait  Image via wordapp.io

How to solve the problem

There are two ways to solve the click bait/trolling problem.

The first starts with the reader or social media user. In this case, the reader must be able to distinguish click bait or fake news from an actual-informative story. There are certain clues the reader can take to distinguish from a click bait headline. If it sounds too good to be true--it probably is.

The other way to solve the problem involves the social media website. Facebook is known for their extensive algorithms that are designed to detect and block fake news if a post is getting a substantial amount of traction in a short period of time.

Other social media outlets, such as Twitter could benefit from developing a similar program. The program should include detecting key words and monitor posts getting tons of traction for validity.

Ultimately, it needs to be a combined effort--from the journalist to the reader and social media site, if we hope to solve the click bait problem.

Live Streaming - Not So Great Is It?

Adrianna Davies
ad497714@ohio.edu

Photo via NY Daily News - Photo shows Steve Stephens, the man who murdered someone via Facebook Live on Easter Sunday 2017.

(Comments and names have been blurred for protection of the people and to hide any expletive language.)

What is a live stream?
Straight from the English Oxford Dictionary, live stream is a noun - "a live transmission of an event over the Internet." or a verb - "transmit or receive live video and audio coverage over the Internet." People all over the world live stream from everywhere. Interning this summer, the Chief Meteorologist would do a Facebook live at least once a day. Why? Because people loved tuning in to hear a quick forecast overview and this way they get the chance to watch "behind the scenes" of an actual broadcast.

My friend's super annoying little brother goes live on Instagram at least once a day to talk to his friends about absolutely nothing. People go live simply because they can and they want to show off what exactly they are up too. And what better way to do it than over the Internet.

Now, there are obviously going to be security and privacy issues with live streams, as we've learned in the past few months.

Streaming Turned Violent
I'm sure most people have seen the videos of the police shootings or abuse on any type of social media. One that sparks up a huge conversation is about Diamond Reynolds and her fiance, Philando Castile, who was shot multiple times by police for what was a routine traffic stop. Diamond wanted everyone to see the video, which is why she posted it. She wanted the world to know the truth and this video was cold, hard evidence.

Another example of violence posted on Facebook via live stream was Steve Stephens, a Cleveland man who murdered an innocent grandfather to make a statement to his ex-girlfriend. This was something that hit home to me because he was in Cleveland, streets away from Cleveland State University and where the news station I interned at was located. The video was gut wrenching to watch and once it was on the Internet, it blew up. (Read more on the story here)

The Negative Sides of Streaming
Videos of violence have taken the Internet by storm. This isn't the typical way people have been able to view violence in the past. Before, stories like this would take days to learn of, usually through newspapers and stayed in one constrained area. Now, it can be shared, streamed and re-tweeted all over the country, continent and world as it's happening.

Because of this, police have run into some issues when it comes to regulating the content of these violent videos. These videos show real time moments and can share information that is valuable to how police should handle certain situations. The protests in Charlottesville and Dallas were shared and had vital information as to who was at fault in these riots. Some involved in protests try to urge people to stop streaming because some videos can potentially become evidence for the police.

Many people can agree that sharing these violent videos can have negative effects on the viewers. Streams that pertain to race, like Diamond Reynold's video, can cause post-traumatic stress disorder for African Americans who may have been involved in, or have had family involved in, a police brutality situation.

Not to mention the families of these people who have been scene murdered or hurt. Every time something like this shows up on their timeline, it is a reminder of the pain they had to go through.

The use of Drones

Jeremy Lin
JL402214@ohio.edu

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-drone-journalism-take-flight-us-john-egan

In the modern world, we are capable of using a remote-controlled machine that can fly and is equipped with a camera and can record or photograph almost anything and everything in many different aspects, this is a drone. Now the question is, is this amazing capability necessarily a positive thing? and should it be allowed?

In terms of the use of drones in America and applying to the journalism there are rules and certifications in place that enable someone to legally use these flyable machines for journalist purposes. Getting certified to fly these is not easy  and a lot goes into the use of these drones as of 2016 new rules were established to use certain types of drones.

But the footage one can obtain from a drone is undeniably amazing it was until drones came around can you manage to get a picture from only 50 to 100 feet above the ground from unmanned aircraft of that size. An example of how much a drone can really show was displayed in a CNN report in 2016 when there was massive flooding in Louisiana you can watch the video here.

The main dilemma with the use of drones in journalism is the sense of privacy and what the drone actually be picking up when taking a photograph or video. With the popularity of "drone journalism" on the rise with astonishing capabilities this concern about privacy is obviously something that concerns the public as well as journalists. But something to consider is that ultimately the journalist is responsible for respecting the privacy of whatever is being photographed just like any other photojournalism piece. Much like any form of journalism there is a general collection of ethic codes that "drone journalists" follow. Adding more to the topic of privacy, in today's world most cities in the United States have their own local code that journalists must follow when using drones. Drone journalists must also beware of flight restrictions when using them often times there will be temporary flight restrictions that would not allow for drone use.

Relating back to the topic questioning if the use of drone journalism is positive, it safe to say that drones have truly changed the photojournalism world and have opened the eyes of the public to a new perspective into what is happening in the world. Drones allow for the journalist to display images that would otherwise be impossible to capture. When discussing the use of drones in the photojournalism world I believe that the creation of this machine was a step in the right direction and allows the journalist to report the happenings around the world to the fullest extent via photograph or video. One aspect of the use of drones in journalism, is the fact that it is an unmanned aircraft whereas before drones one would have to enter a helicopter to get an image that wasn't even close to what you can accomplish with a drone because it can only fly at a certain altitude when a drone can fly lower to the ground achieve a more quality image. I believe that is safe say that drones undoubtedly a positive invention for photojournalism.