Adversity and Confusion

Anna Wise
aw138915@ohio.edu

When thinking about "diversity" I wrestle with the fact that it has sort of become a buzzword for people to feel comfortable with seeming more inclusive and not actually taking any productive action to improve conditions in their schools, newsrooms, workplaces, etc. As a strategic communication professional, I can understand how it can be easy to tokenize people within your company or newsroom and call that diversity, but that cannot be the way we actually fix underrepresentation. We are tasked with figuring out how to actually bring more people to the table.

The Problem

What many of us fail to realize is that much of the problem with creating more diverse media environments is in how we actually go about it. We often fail to realize that the real problem we face is the structure of the system itself.  Instead of real change coming from inclusion of many different types of people, those people are "included" into the same structures that were created by those who had the dominance and power to create them. By simply lumping people into a category of "diversity" nothing is actually disrupted, and therefore no real innovation or creativity is encouraged or produced. The system itself has to be shaken, and even broken.

A Real Solution

We as industry professionals need to realize that by acknowledging the differences between people, we open the door for new perspectives to take our content to levels that it never could have before. When looking at the efforts of the Washington Post and other publications and companies, it is clear we have to become comfortable with thrusting ourselves into uncomfortable conversations. The root of the problem is that we tend to shy away from confronting the real issues and why we are afraid of having those conversations. They can be difficult to navigate and may force us into some tough realizations, but they are necessary for conditions to improve.

As a white woman, I know that so much of my life is experienced differently through the eyes of a black or Latina woman, or a woman who grew up in a different region or type of household than me. These personal experiences breathe life into content and make it richer while avoiding the possibility for blandness or insensitivity. We have seen time and time again how ad campaigns or strategies can fail dramatically when it is obvious that not enough time was spent talking with people who could provide a true viewpoint into a situation.

Source: tvline.com

When there are more voices in the conversation, the conversation allows for a more well-rounded outlook, innovation and possibility of a better outcome.

In the world of strategic communication, we are in the business of people. If not enough variety of voices are present, a brand or company simply is not able to connect with a variety of consumers or people outside of the organization. If we make a conscience effort to re-imagine the structure of our workplaces instead of simply checking a box, we not only are better set up for success, but we are able to thrive in an environment that truly supports and encourages the divergence of thought. I look forward to joining those efforts as I begin my career and develop as a young professional.

The Big Story: To Break or not to Break?

Michael Kromer
mk428915@ohio.edu

In journalism today, writers have to answer the all important question when considering the 'big story:' to break, or not to break? Particularly in this case, there is a struggle to make a decision when it comes to stories dealing with sexual assault. For example, in the #metoo movement there is a struggle for journalists to balance helping those who have not had a voice, and ensuring that their story travels through the entirety of the journalists' process of vetting and cross-checking. 

Courtesy of Market Watch

On one hand, news outlets should feel obligated to lend a helping hand to all of the people that have suffered for so long and have had their stories suppressed by being paid off or settled with outside of court. But on the other hand, what if that individual's story isn't true? Reporting a story of such magnitude only for it to come back false, would be a huge blow to the credibility of not only that news outlet, but the media as a whole. As if the trust in the media isn't already low, falsely reporting sexual assault accusations could be catastrophic for the industry. However, as nothing more than a human being it would be incredibly difficult to listen to an assault victim's story and then tell that person that you cannot publicize their story. It is hard enough for individuals to tell their story to the media at all, let alone to no avail. Therefore, it is important for a journalist to look for stories regarding sexual assault, and it is important to listen to them. But when a story is found, it is also important to be certain that the story is true.

Looking at another massive sexual assault story, this broken by the Indianapolis Star, it was because of journalism that the world now knows about Larry Nassar. The story all started with one woman, who "was an ideal source for these kinds of stories," Fast Company said. In other words, she came to her interview with Indy Star prepared; she had medical records and could prove everything she said. So in this case, the decision to break the story for the Indy Star was easy. But getting victims to come forward is never easy, so how did they do it? In fact, the Indianapolis Star simply followed the journalists' code. They were extremely transparent with their readership and with the victims they interviewed. They were upfront and honest, and as a result, the gymnasts trusted the paper. So therein lies a lesson of its own: as a reporter if you are transparent and honest with all parties that you are involved with, then the audience, and the subjects you report on will be more likely to trust you. 

Overall, reporting on sexual assault and choosing to break massive stories against massively powerful and often famous individuals is always going to be inherently challenging. Journalists have a duty to serve their public, both with information, and by allowing them to feel heard, especially in their time of need. Without journalists, the people affected by the #metoo movement, and the gymnasts affected by Larry Nasser, would still be suppressed to this day. So it is very important to report the stories of those who have gone without a voice for so long, but it is also important to do it in a way that can maintain the journalistic process, so as to maintain the small credibility journalism still has.

Finding a Balance Between Too Much & Not Enough

Natalie Matesic
nm989014@ohio.edu

Reporting about sexual assault can be a touchy subject, but is it better to cover up something uncomfortable, or speak up to potentially inspire or save other people? Journalists' number one priority should be to report the truth, whether that truth is painful or not. Women everywhere have spoken out and built the #MeToo movement over social media. Journalists have a duty to report on this subject, but how should they go about doing that?

Sexual assault and sharing the stories that victims have so bravely told is so important in keeping the movement and the message alive. But how much information is too much information? Is reporting about a victim's story ethical when we only have one side of the story? A wrongful accusation is a factor, as well as respect for the victim's personal information. So how does one report on such a subject?

The Me Too Movement has been a monumental step in the right direction by giving victims a voice while taking the power away from attackers. Victims of sexual assault are able to connect with other survivors in a safe environment and do it in a space where having the courage to speak your truth is commended. With the importance of this movement, though, comes great responsibility in reporting it correctly and effectively. This includes being respectful of the victim's name and privacy, as well as the explicit details of their story.

Where to Start
NSVRC (National Sexual Violence Resource Center) created a tip-list on how journalists should go about writing on sexual assault. They touch on tactics such as discussing prevention, the effects of sexual assault, providing a call to action, and talking about survivors in a diverse way.

What I found the most interesting is the discussion of "the right way to write about rape." In this, an activist and advocate surveyed hundreds of articles to show good examples to journalists about the best way to write about rape, and she could only find two. “And they weren’t even stories about rape, they were stories about covering rape." This is a problem because if a victim is asked to share their story to be covered, the tone shouldn't change and their story shouldn't be softened. The final product should be a reflection of the tone set at the interview.

She talks about the importance of protecting the victim's privacy, as well as the perpetrator's if they have not been convicted yet. She also talks about writing with truth, integrity, and respect. This includes not bringing your personal experiences into the conversation, as a victim's stories might never be related to. One interesting point brought up is the word usage. Being careful with word usage.

Me Too Survivors' March: Hollywood, California. November 2017. (Mashable.com).

"Commonly used verbs such as “alleged,” “admits,” and “confesses” insert shame and uncertainty into quotes." Instead of using these words that can create confusion and shame, she says to use the word "said" instead. Being careful and aware of covering their story with respect is the most important aspect of reporting about a sexual assault victim correctly and effectively.

#MeToo: To Report Or To Not (here's a hint...report.)

Katrina Kopronica

kk821516@ohio.edu


As journalists, we face just about every type of ethical debate known to mankind when reporting. Some, however, are heavier than others.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement hundreds of thousands of women came out and shared their sexual assault stories. Many of these instances were women telling their own stories, but in some cases it was so much bigger: Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and frankly the biggest of all, Larry Nassar, to name a few.

With cases as big as the ones mentioned above the movement found its way to mainstream news networks, leaving it to journalists to report on the sexual assault cases of people they, frankly, didn't even actually know.

At this point the question is raised, how does one report on such a heavy topic? Aren't these technically just accusations? Should one even report on it?

Newsflash: the answer is yes.

The fact that sexual misconduct is the most under-reported crime is due to a common belief that women make up these stories for attention or to get back at a man who rejected them. Victims' accounts are often scrutinized to the point of exhaustion. In high-profile cases, victims are often labeled opportunists, blamed for their own victimization, and punished for coming forward.

The truth of the matter is that many women don't come out and share their stories for fear of the consequences.

Rebecca Solnit, a survivor of sexual assault, wrote:

"Because here’s a thing you might have forgotten about women being menaced or assaulted or beaten or raped: we think we might be murdered before it’s over. I have. And because there’s often a second layer of threat “if you tell. From your assailant, or from the people who don’t want to hear about what he did and what you need. Patriarchy kills off stories and women to maintain its power. If you’re a woman, this stuff shapes you; it scars you, it tells you you are worthless, no one, voiceless, that this is not a world in which you are safe or equal or free. That your life is something someone else may steal from you, even a complete stranger, just because you’re a woman. And that society will look the other way most of the time, or blame you, this society that is itself a system of punishment for being a woman.”

It is so crucial that when a women comes out and shares her story that she is supported. It's 2018 people, we're in an incredibly progressive time period, the fact that sexual assault alone is finally being addressed very publicly is a huge stepping stone. We as journalists know that spreading the truth is part of our job, we tend to have no problem exposing criminals of other nature, same goes for sex offenders. Regardless of status, a sex offender is a criminal. A very terrible type of criminal, one that leaves mental scars for a lifetime on their victim.

(Photo Courtesy of rainn.org)

Now I know that leads to the question of, well what if the woman is making a false accusation? The truth of the matter is that, according to the National Sexual Violence Research Center, false allegations make up only about 2 percent to 10 percent of cases. That being said, only about 2% of rapists actually serve jail time for their crime.

What it comes down to is the heavy majority of women aren't lying about these horrible things that happen to them. We are changing the climate of talking about sexual assault, breaking the taboo. And studies have shown that sexual assault rates have decreased! Raising awareness is so important because at the end of the day, that's someone's daughter, sister, cousin, mother, wife, and no one should ever be put through such a thing.

It's our responsibility as journalists to use the power of the pen to create change.

I speak for myself and many others when I say if you're a survivor of sexual assault, we will fight for you.

#MeToo.

Reporting Sexual Assault in Journalism

Kaitlyn Lyons
kl310115@ohio.edu

In today's society, journalists are often times put in very hard situations when it comes to publishing controversial stories and articles. Some of their readers may have a different perspective than them, so there is a high possibility of backlash on their article. It is important to publish the full and true story; no matter what kind of things could be said, because truth always comes first. Before publishing, the journalist needs to fact check to make sure they have all of the details sorted out. Accusing someone of something that did not happen could leave to very negative things. The best decision is to just stay neutral and not voice their opinion. Instead, just give the information out to the public.

Sexual assault has been a huge topic discussed in the media. Several victims have finally felt comfortable enough to come forward and share their story about what happened to them. This is also a very sensitive topic which could make it hard to write about. Journalists have to be extremely careful about the language and word choice they use. Not only do journalists report the story, but they are able to give the public warning signs and information about assault in order to prevent it from occurring.

                                                               Courtesy of poynter.com

In 2006 the #MeToo movement began. This is a way to help survivors heal from the trauma of assault and get them the help they need in order to fully recover. Journalists played a huge role in making this movement trend. The movement is continuing to grow and will keep getting bigger and more popular overtime. The bigger it gets, the more likely it is for survivors come out with their stories. The #MeToo movement is a way to bring complete strangers together to help one another out. Journalism is a way of connecting these people by publishing their stories to the public, instead of being private about it.

In the generation we live in now, more and more people have been voicing their opinions and speaking up which is a good thing and a bad thing. Journalists need to remember to keep their code of ethics in mind when writing their stories about touchy subjects such as assault. Also, it is important to get permission from everyone involved in the story before publishing the story. Everyone has the right to privacy and journalists need to respect that. This does not mean leave out important information, it is just important to get consent from everyone so there are no surprises.

As time goes on, the more assaults will happen, become ignored, and not released to the public until several years after it happened. As a whole, society needs to speak up and stop the predators of sexual assault. Journalists are able to spread the news in a timely and efficient manner and warn the public about what is happening.

#WhyIDidntReport vs. #MeToo: Comparing Ethical Considerations

Brigitte Meisse
bm179214@ohio.edu

We are in a new era - an era where people are encouraged to speak up, an era where you are no longer expected to suffer in silence and an era where you can find communities of unwavering support. A flood of sharing has taken over social media through the #MeToo movement. While there are now places where victims of sexual assault can speak up and be surrounded by similar stories and words of encouragement, there are also entire groups of negativity and doubt.

Recently, Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by a high school classmate. As controversy grew over Kavanaugh, President Trump took to Twitter to defend his nominee saying, "If the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed."

Screenshot via @realDonaldTrump on Twitter

This criticism of Kavanaugh's accuser sparked outraged throughout social media and inspired an entirely new campaign called #WhyIDidntReport to show how victims are forced into silence or even fear coming forward.

When the #MeToo began, there were many ethical considerations journalists had to keep in mind when reporting on the movement. Some of these included remaining unbiased, understanding when to name victims and also never labeling the accused as a rapist. As a journalist, it's not our job determine the guilty parties in these situations and we must only stick to the facts.

As #WhyIDidntReport gains popularity, it also comes with a few things for journalists to remember. While reporting these narratives, journalists yet again must remain unbiased and stick to the facts.

Now you might be wondering, what's the difference?

Many of the narratives being shared through #WhyIDidntReport leave out the parties involved. Victims are often sharing their reason for not reporting rather than what happened and who was involved. The entire point of the campaign is to show that it's common to keep these horrific incidents hidden away. Without people being accused, there is more room to creatively and effectively share these stories and create a level of understanding and passion for the victims. Journalists can give more perspective on why these situations take place without wrongfully accusing individuals in the process. 

With that being said, there are people who share their #MeToo stories without making accusations and giving names, but it seems like #WhyIDidntReport is a lower risk topic. No matter which campaign a journalist covers, it must be done with extreme sensitivity. Sexual assault is a life changing occurrence and telling the story incorrectly can also change lives.

Ultimately, these stories give victims a chance to share and journalists a reason to listen. We must remember that details matter, truth matters and in these scenarios, proceeding with caution matters. There is no room for error in the era of #MeToo and #WhyIDidntReport. 

The World is Listening - Should They Hear Everything?

Bailey Kormick
bk399015@ohio.edu

What's the problem?
The world is finally listening, and there are countless stories waiting to be told. Sexual assault is a topic of discussion for millions all over the world, and journalists are taking the time to hear the stories and write them. Gabriel Sherman, special correspondent for Vanity Fair, said "we're at a cultural moment when the culture is ready to listen to victims and take the allegations seriously." It is inspiring to see victims stand together for justice, and it is inspiring to read articles that support those who have been wronged. So, what's the problem?

When writing a victim's story, is it always acceptable to identify them? More specifically, is it always acceptable to identify a minor? The reports on the sexual assault cases from the USA gymnastics organization encounter many victims who are minors. In a scenario when a child has suffered sexual assault, is it ethically acceptable to publish their name?

Courtesy of hrtopics.com

It's Complicated
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) believes "this issue is not black and white; it is a wide range of grays." Each case differs, and each journalist has different beliefs. It is neither right nor wrong, according to the SPJ code of ethics to publish the name of a sexually abused child. Therefore, it is up to the individual reporter but, there are no guidelines or policies set in place to help guide or advise a journalists. There is no identifier to know when a line is being crossed.

Journalists have a responsibility to report the news and stories to the public but, this cannot jeopardize the privacy, safety or well being of the public at the same time.

Why Does it Matter?
Some may be wondering why to even question whether the name should be published. This needs to be a discussion because people's - children's - lives are being publicized and discussed. It is possible that identification could cause the sexually assaulted minor more trauma. SPJ bluntly writes "it is a journalist's job - and obligation - to tell compelling stories in detail. But is there ever a hint when it is better for a journalist to step back, give the story's subject her privacy, and, if necessary, tell the clamoring public to mind its own business?"

The Solution
Even though it is not ethically wrong, according to the SPJ code of ethics, to publish the name of a minor during a sexual assault investigation, there still needs to be some type of guideline in place to help journalists make this ethical decision. This should not be an easy five-minute decision. The repercussions and possible results of identifying the victim should be an open discussion with the guardians of the child, and it should be a unanimous decision from the family, reporter, editor and victim. When the life of a child is at risk whether that be physically, emotionally or psychologically the parties involved need to be 100 percent positive of their decision.

Stop Fearing The Word Rape

Emma Kennedy
ek001915@ohio.edu

The media is the gatekeeper for what the mass public hears about sexual assault cases. Journalists are the first people to break the story and therefore make the most important impression. As journalists we need to make sure we are reporting on sexual assault cases as efficiently and effectively as possible.

More often as journalists we tip toe around sexual assault stories not wanting to end up being wrong or falsely accuse someone. Except, this comes across as making light of a very serious topic. When the wording is changed and rape is not defined as rape, the claim becomes diluted.

Journalists need to be on the frontline of helping the raging rape culture in our country, just here in Athens we are looking at over a dozen sexual assault cases. We need to be harsher with our terms and state the facts as they are. If a man forced a woman into sex, that is rape. If a woman forced a man into sex, that is rape. If someone forces someone else into sex, that is rape. Point blank, we as journalists need to stop being afraid of the word rape.

When the public reads a story and the accused is being painted in a good light then the public turns on the victim. The most famous case is Brock Turner, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a girl but was not properly punished.

Yes it is true good people do bad things, but that does not mean they should be forgiven and defended when they do cruel things. Journalists need to stop treading lightly on sexual assault. Journalists need to hold people accountable for their actions.

Journalists need to stop provoking the "what was she wearing" debate. Consent is consent no matter what the scenario is or what the victim is wearing. They are a victim, end of story. When articles highlight other factors such as what the victim was doing, wearing, or drinking they dilute the fact that the victim was sexually assaulted. The hard fact is one out of six American woman are raped in their lifetime, not because of what they are wearing, but because society turns a blind eye to rape.

Rainn Statistics

Sexual assault cases also deserve more sensitivity from media than they receive. The media needs to be transparent with the victims and keep them in mind. Talking about such a horrific experience takes a lot of bravery and these survivors needed to be treated with respect. They do not need to be portrayed as being overdramatic and emotional.

Since journalists often report before cases have been closed they do have to acknowledge that the rape is "alleged," but that word carries a strong negative connotation. The word "alleged" has been wildly related to false rape cases, except only two percent of rape cases are false accusations.  Therefore journalists need to use other words to give more weight to this topic.

Coverage on sexual assault has become much better, as a society we have become more enlightened to the problem of sexual assault. But woman are still systematically oppressed and only 40 percent of rape cases are actually reported. So when woman are brave enough to stand up and say this happened to them, as journalists, we have a responsibility to give them the coverage they deserve. We have a responsibility to alert the public that this is still happening, our friends and families are still being raped.

The Importance of #MeToo

Gary Mayle
gm301615@ohio.edu

Tarana Burke and Alyssa Milano took the #MeToo movement to a level neither of them could have ever fathomed or imagined. Tarana Burke founded the movement and Milano's tweet allowed for it to take off. Millions of victims of sexual misconduct have since shared their stories, and as a result it has completely changed the world. Burke and Milano empowered victims, allowing them to gain freedom and peace of mind for the crimes they endured in the past, all while shocking the world. Nobody could have imagined the amount of victims that would come out as a result.

So a staggering 1.7 million tweets was the result, only in just a little over a month from the first time Milano used the hashtag to tell her story and inspire others to do just the same. The question for journalists has never been its impact, rather it's how to report on such a vast, deep and fragile topic. So the question stands, how do you report this topic?

Start With Recognizing Backlash

Those accused with call the story fake news. Troll accounts will demean stories, call victims liars or even possibly threaten to attack them. Keeping this in mind, journalists must keep the victims' safety and best interests in mind. The goal is to recognize that the sum is greater than the parts. Yes, you will undoubtedly encounter those who will shrug off these kinds of stories, but journalists change the world by shedding light on these stories and empowering the victims behind them. With that being said, journalists must not report these form of stories lousily, as that would be a breach in ethics.

Next, Recognize The Names Being Spread Here

Bill Cosby, Brett Kavanaugh, and Leslie Moonves are just a few of the top powerful names from the past year that have felt the impact of the Me Too movement from their actions. Prominence is a key player in investigative journalism like this. Matt Lauer of NBC and Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker were immediately fired once their sexual misconduct stories broke. Keeping this in mind, a reporter's duty is to disseminate knowledge but to know that in these such instances they are life and career- threatening, and they should be treated by journalists as so.

photo: EPA-EFE

Watch The Impact

Journalist don't get the credit they deserve reporting these types of stories. They must carefully craft stories, mostly toward notable and powerful figures, and know they will receive backlash. Facing that backlash comes with a reward though, as the more sexual assault and misconduct cases come out the less powerful these types of people become. The process starts with a brave individual and ends with a courageous reporter.

Why Journalists Should #ReportToo

Samantha Morsink
sm362415@ohio.edu

Women and sexual violence have been a growing topic in recent conversations. In the media specifically, women speaking out has created conversations about women's rights and the way men in power have treated them that have previously been brushed under the rug. Many journalists have struggled to cover this topic because it is such a controversial topic that has caused many heated conversations with news outlets and people of power. While all stories call for legitimate concerns and should be treated as such, with the number of stories that are now coming out, it is always possible that there could be the occasional story that doesn't always end up being the way that it seems.

For journalists, it is their job to report news and report the truth. This can be difficult when it is a case of "he said she said." On one end, it is important to help these victims and share news that is valuable to this movement and the women who are being affected. On the other side, journalists also have to be careful not to wrongly accuse anyone of something they may not have done. So how do journalists rightfully report on these issues?

Photo retrieved from:
 https://dribbble.com/shots/2078723-Stand-For-Something-Strong-or-Stand-Strong

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center has a tip sheet for how journalists can report correctly on these sensitive topics. This talks about how understanding who these victims are and having data about the background of sexual violence cases can help journalists to better report on these issues. This article also talks about how interviewing multiple subjects and reporting on a broad spectrum of situations and scenarios can help other victims feel like they have a place to tell their story. I think this is important because many of the victims who are reporting their #MeToo stories are celebrities and while their stories are important, this can sometimes discourage the "ordinary person" into feeling like they aren't important enough to talk about their own situations.



Despite the risk of the occasional false story, journalists reporting on these issues has benefits that far outweigh any potential negatives. The power of the media is extreme, and how these stories are published and what is being said has created a wave of women empowerment. Many who have been victims of sexual assault have been able to gather the courage to tell their story because of the influence they felt when they saw other's stories coming out and being told. Feeling like they are not alone and seeing other women being able to speak up and being defended and supported by the media has allowed many other women to stand up as well. Sexual violence has not dramatically increased in recent years. Many cases of women being victimized were happening before this movement, but because of the media's failure to track these stories and report on the silencing of these women, it was uncommon that women would come forward with their stories because they were often shamed or not believed, some even lost their jobs. The media coming forward and addressing this problem has led to women feeling that they may now have a chance to tell their story and actually be heard.

Unfortunately, not all journalists are being praised for reporting on these kinds of stories. Rana Ayyub, who is an investigative journalist and columnist from India, is one prime example of how reporting on these stories can put journalists at risk for backlash. In an article from Global Editors Network, it is discussed how the power of social media can amplify the backlash for some women in rural, international regions, but it also allows women to stand together and support each other. This support and rallying together is what allows women and men to report on and tell these stories, and is essential to the success of this movement.

By standing together, journalists can have the power to let others be heard through their media outlets. The influence of this kind of power far surpasses what any negative consequences could lead to. Journalism is a powerful tool, and together we can use this to stand together.

Sexual Assault and the #MeToo Movement

Dominic Massa
dm968315@ohio.edu

Sexual assault has become one of the most critical issues organizations face. It is incredibly detrimental to a company when an employee harasses or bothers a co-worker, or anyone outside the organization, sexually or inappropriately. In efforts to raise awareness over sexual misconduct, many victims have begun using the #MeToo on social media sites, indicating that they have also been affected in a negative manner. Organizations must now be careful not only with handling sexual assault, but also, ensuring that it does not occur within their walls.

A #MeToo women's march in Hollywood, California, in November, 2017.  (Huffington Post)

Identifying Sexual Assault

Recognizing sexual assault is not always simple for companies. In some cases, an employee may be committing a great deal of misconduct or assault without anyone else being aware of the situation. For instance, take Netflix and its original show House of Cards, which starred actor Kevin Spacey.  The series is considered by many to be one of the most entertaining television shows on Netflix, with Spacey playing a critical role in the show's success.  However, the series is expected to conclude after its sixth season, which premiered this year, in light of a string of various sexual assault allegations facing Spacey. On October 29, 2017, Anthony Rapp, an actor on Star Trek: Discovery, told BuzzFeed that, in 1986, Spacey imposed himself sexually on the boy, who was just 14 years old at the time, in Spacey's apartment in New York. A little over a week afterward, 14 other males also reported sexual misconduct instances they had with Spacey.  Shortly after, Spacey made a public statement in which he admitted he was gay, perhaps an attempt to somewhat "rationalize" his actions.  As a result, Netflix immediately fired Spacey, saying, "Netflix will not be involved with any further production of House of Cards that includes Kevin Spacey."  Although Spacey was a vital piece that helped elevate House of Cards over other shows, Netflix recognized it was too risky to keep the actor as a member of their organization.

Consequences of Sexual Assault

Of course, many consequences arise as a result of sexual assault. Not only will personal image be tarnished due to inappropriate actions, but also, companies will be quite hesitant to employing a culprit of sexual harassment. This seems to be the case when considering the career of actor and comedian Louis C.K.  A successful entertainer, C.K. had performed in front of live audiences, as well as on television and in films.  Just before the premiere of his comedy-drama film I Love You, Daddy, The Orchard, the entertainment company who had purchased the rights to distribute the film, cancelled its release due to "unexpected circumstances".  Those unexpected circumstances were sexual harassment allegations against C.K., from five women who he had previously worked with.  In 2002, comedy duo Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov were invited back to C.K.'s hotel room following the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, Colorado.  When they arrived, C.K. asked if he could take out his penis.  Although the two women perceived this as a joke, C.K. proceeded to take off all his clothes and began masturbating.  Again, despite the success that C.K. would bring to The Orchard, the company felt it morally correct to instead cancel the premiere, saving them from future problems related to sexual assault.

Breaking the Silence: Reporting on Sexual Assault

Ally Lanasa
al887715@ohio.edu

Investigative journalism has uncovered hundreds of sexual assault cases in America, including the sexual abuse of children in USA gymnastics and in the Catholic Church. In the age of "fake news" and the #MeToo movement, journalists have to be extremely cautious about approaching sexual assault stories. Reporters encounter an incredible challenge to meet journalistic responsibilities when covering sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations. Journalists are trained not to accept anonymous sources, but anonymity may be critical to protecting victims from further harm. While upholding the ethical standard to seek and report the truth, journalists sometimes have to weigh the responsibility of transparency and minimizing harm.

In 2017, TIME's Person of the Year was not one person, but a group of women who broke the silence of sexual assault. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, accusers spoke to TIME about their horrific encounters with powerful men. Among the accusers were Ashley Judd, who addressed Harvey Weinstein's advances on her in 1997, and Taylor Swift, who discussed the blame her harasser, Denver radio DJ David Mueller, and his lawyer wanted her to feel for Mueller's loss of employment. TIME also published the stories of two anonymous accusers. In TIME's decision to include such sources, the publication sacrificed transparency for seeking truth and minimizing harm.

Although it appears the #MeToo movement happened overnight, the victims have been suffering with these stories for years, afraid of the consequences that would come from the allegations. Women feared loss of trust and advancement in their careers. Now, victims are more likely to be believed as the number of reported sexual assaults is rising.

Chris Pizzello/AP

In response to the recent allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, Patti Davis wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post to share her support of Ford. Davis, the author and daughter of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, was allegedly abused by a music executive 40 years ago. Although the incident haunted her for years, she was unable to share the details, even with her loved ones. She was ashamed that she did not fight back. In the piece, she described the vivid details she remembers and what insignificant parts she cannot recall.

The most challenging aspect of covering sexual assault allegations is the lack of evidence. According to an article by Truthdig, "rape kits often remain untested in police and crime labs, and without a recording or text exchange, harassment can be difficult to document." Another concern about reporting assault is addressing the severity of the assaults differently. Harassment is not equivalent to rape. The distinction is necessary.

Journalists should prepare to receive as much criticism from powerful men for reporting the allegations as the accusers will inevitably face. They should consider the SPJ Code of Ethics and  prioritize which ethical standards are the most significant to uphold. Is transparency as important as minimizing harm when it comes to reporting the allegations? Does anonymity reduce the accuracy and objectivity of the article? Covering sexual assault is complicated and should not be approached without careful consideration.

No, Objectivity isn't Dead

Nick Henthorn
nh685616@ohio.edu

If you posed the question "is objectivity dead?" to Google, the answer you'd receive is a categorical yes. The first search result is titled "Objectivity is dead, and I'm okay with it." This is not true.

It is not possible for objectivity to just disappear into the ether, where the journalistic world woke up one day and, shocked and dismayed, discovered that objectivity could not be found anymore. Objectivity can only be abandoned, as it does by those who go forth and falsely tell readers that a fundamental root of journalism and information in general had a lifespan.

Objectivity is more elusive, more inconvenient, and more demanding for today's journalists, but one thing it is not and can never be is dead.

It is those three things for a few chief reasons. In an age of news where outlets are so easily accessible and the industry is so saturated, objectivity may not get as many of the all-mighty clicks as news with incendiary flames of passion and fervor woven into the story. While I write this with grief, some journalists like it this way, and some can be found in this very university.

I recall Judy Woodruff taking the time to pay my Journalism 1010 class a visit, where she was asked why PBS was thought of as dry, and why couldn't they spice things up a little. This is hazardous thinking. The idea that news is obligated to entertain and inspire awe in readers, listeners and watchers can lead the people providing the news short of the truth. If news is an entree it should not be delicious, only digestable. Dry news is not a failing of any outlet, but the best way to convey objectivity that there is.

Credit: Detroit Public Television

Journalists can also be pushed away from objectivity because of how exposed they are to their audience. As Dan Kennedy wrote for WGBH, social media makes it impossible for journalists to separate their work environment from their personal one. This leads to some journalists' twitter profiles being filled with hot takes and scathing criticisms while they claim their work is still objective. In the year 2018, a journalist's Twitter profile is their work. And that makes objectivity a round-the-clock effort.

Objectivity is impossible, some may say. I, and everyone on the earth, have a bias, they say, and pretending that I don't is lying. To that, I reply, having a bias does not compel you to spew that bias all over your work.

Restraint is one of the most important qualities a journalist can have today, one of the reasons being that it allows him or her to respect their audience, and give them only the facts of any matter without pulling them towards their own personal conclusion. I myself have a few opinions. Opinions on freedom of speech, on immigration, on gun rights, and on and on and on. But those biases don't belong here, so I'll leave them to the side. It's not impossible.

Some have captured the word "objective" and casually contorted it to mean "fair." How this was allowed to happen behooves the mind because fairness is a subjective term. This rewriting of journalistic tenets makes the word the exact opposite of itself; it makes objectivity subjective. What is fair to one may seem horribly slanted to another.

For objectivity to be preserved in a time where half of America doesn't consider any news source to be such, a fair way to present the story should be thrown on the back burner, and journalists should use all their tools and training to go back to the good 'ol five Ws that we have been taught since grade school.

Social Media: A Journalist's Ultimatum

Thomas Garverick
cg701315@ohio.edu

When you make the decision to become a journalist, you relinquish the right to always speak your opinion. The key word there is always because in the last decade, social media has changed the way that journalists go about doing their job -- what they can and cannot say about certain topics.

News organizations like "The New York Post" claim to have the right to force you to take a neutral approach. Should  news organization have this type of control over journalists?

I thought this quote was extremely interesting from Dan Kennedy in the article called "In defense of Neutrality: Why News Organizations are Right to Crack Down on Social Media".

"If someone tells you that they have no opinion, even on serious issues, that they are totally objective and that they also never make a mistake, you would probably think they are either a liar or a sociopath. And yet that is what social media polices are asking people to believe."

When you put it like that, I think its crazy that some news organizations feel that way -- whether its for you to not take a personal stand at all or that you have to make a whole entire new policy that reflects their standards.

Sports and news have two different approaches to this -- in sports, its generally accepted for commentators to give their opinions, where as in news, a reporter would be scene biased.

I want to talk about a two cases involving sports and news, but with two different outcomes.

Tweeting Has led to Unemployment 

Colin Cowherd was fired at ESPN for a racially offending tweet,
but quickly found a home with FOX Sports.

Colin Cowherd was once one of the most, if not the most, prominent radio host on ESPN. That all changed with one tweet questioning the intelligence of Dominican Republic, who make-up a large portion of the Major League Baseball community. 

Yes, the tweet came off offensive, but Cowherd did have statistical data in front of him to backup his somewhat harsh clams that the country's economy and educational opportunities hurt them. 

Cowherd however, was fired just two days later. 

He had worked with the company for ESPN for 12 years. 

ESPN has a strong relationship with the MLB, who was not happy about his comment. So based off of one tweet, his organization chose a company over him after over a decade. 

Tweeting can be a slippery slope. 

Roles Reverse, but Different Outcome 

Everyone knows who LeBron James is and the kind of impact he's had as an athlete in the NBA, but off the court too. 

Laura Ingraham angered many African-American athletes for
attacking LeBron James about his comments on Donald Trump.

Laura Ingraham, a TV host for Fox News, didn't seem to care for James. She went on record saying that James should "shut up and dribble and refrain from talking about politics because she didn't need advice from someone getting paid $100 million to bounce a ball." 

So now a news reporter coming out and attacking an athlete. Fox News never punished her for her remarks on James -- if anything, it grew her brand. 

Ingraham to this day is still at Fox News. 

LeBron has since built a school for less fortunate kids in Akron. 

It's crazy to me that Cowherd, a 12-year veteran at ESPN could lose his job over one tweet, but Ingraham can go toe-to-toe with an athlete and get nothing. 

Again, it all goes back to what these organizations believe in. ESPN supports the MLB, and Fox News chose to support their employees attacking of athletes. 

Social media puts organizations in situations that questions them to their core. 

Social Media has Forced Journalists to be Transparent

Dan Justik
dj204915@ohio.edu

Over the past several years, the profession of journalism has been forced into making some critical changes. For the most part, the key component of creating change in journalism has been the rapid growth of social media. It has forced media organizations to change how they post their pieces, but it has also changed how open journalists are about their stories.

The one biggest change in journalism that social media has created is having more transparency from the journalist to the readers. As readers become more connected to stories than ever before, social media has allowed them to call out the reporter for mistakes or fundamental errors in their stories.

Instead of buying newspapers or watching the news, social media has become the main source of news for the average American adult. Not only can a citizen find their news on social media, but they can also interact with the reporter or writer of the story.

Courtesy of Pew Research Center

Before social media, it was extremely difficult for a reader to get in touch with the writer of the story. And even if a reader was able to contact the writer, the writer seemingly had no obligation to respond, or even acknowledge what that reader said to them.

But with social media and everybody being able to see what someone says, there are times that journalists almost have no other choice but to respond with their readers. If a journalist is called out on social media for an error or a mistake and refuses to acknowledge it, there is a good chance that the journalist will lose some credibility.

The threat of losing credibility on social media has caused some major publications to create pieces in order to show how a story is put together. One publication that showed how they broke a news story was The Washington Post, who created a video with the journalists who broke the story about a politician allegedly sexual assaulting teenage girls in his past.

With the rise of people believing that any story is 'fake news,' a journalist being transparent on social will discredit any person that calls their story 'fake news.' By explaining how they gathered their information and pieced the story together, it will show that the story is full of facts that were responsibly researched.

Before social media, it was expected that a journalist would not share how a story was researched with the public. But today, there are media organizations that are saying in their ethics handbooks how a story was out together. In NPR's social media ethics handbook, it is mentioned how journalists should be open about their processes for reporting and editing with social media.

The threat of losing credibility due to social media has forced journalists to be open about how they put their stories together. Even if the journalist does not want to share their process, several major media organizations want them to show the readers the process in writing and reporting on a story. If it weren't for the growth of social media, journalists would not be held as accountable for their stories as they are now.

The Journalist-Community Dynamic: An Important New Age Principle

By: Elise Hammond
eh233614@ohio.edu

The question that journalists are trying to answer in today's digital landscape is what are the best principles of journalism? Are they the same as they were twenty years ago? Should they be? And if not, how should they change so that important core values are not sacrificed?

The answer is that journalistic core values should stay the same.  The ideals that make journalism what it is -- like truth, accuracy, and integrity-- should always be applied, but the principles and code that details how to apply these values needs to change with the times. As the way journalists tell stories adapts, so should the practical and instructional applications of journalistic values.

Community as a Principle

One principle that is changing with journalism is the idea of community.  The way journalists value and use the community needs to change in two ways.  First, the community needs to become more aware and responsible when interacting with news.  It is their responsibility to be informed and realize when news is ethical and when it is not.  Journalists also play a role in this dynamic.  It is their job as professionals to distinguish themselves and their decisions as ethical.  In a world where anyone can make and post news, this dynamic between the community and journalists in regard to knowing and creating ethical content is important.  It is the foundation that will lead to credibility and trust long-term: something the news business has been working hard to establish.

Courtesy: sciencemag.org

The second way the principle of community is changing is in how it relates to "minimizing harm."  In The New Ethics of Journalism, the authors argue in the older set of principles minimizing harm was its own section.  But in the new set, it falls under the larger umbrella of engaging the community.  This is a significant shift because the language used in the principles reflects a change in the relationship between journalists and their community.  Journalism today needs to engage their audience.  The original principles were written with a sense distance between journalism and the community, when in reality, there is no distance.  Journalism and the community are intertwined because anyone can publish content online.  With things like crowdsourcing and social media, the line between journalists and the people they serve is not as distinct as it used to be.

Minimizing Harm

The difference between professional journalists and people posting online is the principle of minimizing harm.  The practice of thinking about the consequences of publishing a story is a principle that is only required of professional journalists.  It is a principle that professional journalists should follow regardless of how stories are being told.  Citizens have no obligation to consider the value of minimizing harm.

The relationship between journalists and their community is critical.  Both the community and journalists will benefit from a practice of transparency and engagement.  Prioritizing community as a principle of ethical journalism in the new age will lead to credibility and trust.  If journalists are producing news in ways they can explain and defend, therefore being transparent, ethical decision making will be easier.  When journalists are actively working to be transparent with their community, they are considering alternatives to minimize harm.  When they are faced with an ethical dilemma, they will already know how to act.  While being transparent, they have thought about decisions they have made so far, who they affect, and how their community feels.  A healthy journalist-community relationship will benefit both parties.

Journalists are NOT the Enemy of the People

Gillian Gonder
gg346916@ohio.edu

What is fake news and why are we obsessed with it?

The term 'fake news' has been around since the 1800s--it is also called propaganda, yellow journalism, conspiracy theories, clickbait, and so on. Fake news is false information that has been spread by accident or without fact-checking sources, such as in the Dan Rather and Mary Mathers scandal involving the Killian Documents, in which CBS went under fire for publishing document without checking the credibility of the source.

Fake news has been around since news has existed, but in recent years, it has become sensationalized. Donald Trump so frequently tweets about and comments on fake news and unethical journalism that it has become a major point of interest and focus. Trump's heavy use of the term 'fake news' became a rallying cry for right-wing supporters during the 2016 election. Trump has so openly expressed disdain for news companies that he nicknamed the press the "enemy of the people."

It is widely known that Trump dislikes the New York Times, but even so, NYT publisher A.G. Sulzberger accepted an off-the-record meeting with him to discourage him from labeling reporters the "enemy of the people." Sulzberger remarked that calling the press the "enemy of the people" is harmful and has led to a rise in threats and violence towards journalists. Sulzberger also warned that calling reporters this harmful phrase is "undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and...eroding one of our country's greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press."

One example of this rise in violence against the press is the Annapolis shooting. The Capital Gazette had previously published an article about Jarrod Ramos, the primary suspect of the shooting, detailing his harassment of a woman from high school. From this point on, Ramos openly despised the newspaper, and attempted to debunk the article written against him, claiming that it defamed him. His open disdain for the paper led him to shoot and kill five employees working in the newsroom.

While Trump continues to call the press the enemy of the people and continues to express disapproval for news organizations who do not agree with his views and opinions, Ivanka Trump has taken a different stance. In an interview with the New York Times, Ms. Trump did say that she shares some of her father's issues with the media, but did not condemn journalists. In this interview, Ms. Trump "became the lone senior administration official to publicly say that she did not share the president's view."

Following this interview with the New York Times, Trump said in a tweet that Ivanka "correctly said no" that the news media are the enemy of the people, directly going against previous statements that reporters are the enemy. He finished the tweet saying that "FAKE NEWS, which is a large percentage of the media...is the enemy of the people!"

Courtesy of The Daily Dot

Trump's disdain for news outlets is largely centered around organizations that are left-wing or that do not agree with his actions and beliefs. He seems believe that any news outlet that is somewhat against him publishes fake news.

On that note, it is the job of journalists to publish accurate information. Journalists must learn to handle criticism--no matter what, the left, the right, and the middle will have differing opinions and there will always be negative feedback, but it is the ethical responsibility of journalists to provide readers with news that has sources and that he been fact-checked, whether it is published on a website, posted on social media, or tweeted by a reporter.

Journalism is a job, not a war.

The Politics of Bias

Helen Horton

hh157115@ohio.edu

Today, more than ever before, journalists are being asked to uphold standards of truth, transparency and objectivity. These morals are challenged every day with notions of fake news, calling the media "the enemy of the people", and more. And with the rise of the Internet, journalists are now having to take those standards and apply them in a fast-paced, technology-based world without being called liars and deceivers.

So is it possible for journalism to be completely truthful and bias-free? Theoretically, yes. But does it work like that in day-to-day life? Not quite.

An article from WGBH argues that news organizations have the right to enforce social media rules for its content creators, stating that, "Providing tough, fair-minded coverage is a discipline that is undermined once you disclose your own biases. It's not just that your audience's view of your work changes; it's that you change too."

A key factor that all successful (and respected) journalists have in common is that they are relied on for neutral and accurate coverage of politics. Once that reliability is lost, you’re toast. We discussed in class about journalists throughout history that are now talked about for their lies rather than their major accomplishments: Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and the like. These people's reputations have been tarnished because they either lied, cut corners, or forgot to fact-check.

A scene from a movie on Stephen Glass's ethical stunt, Shattered Glass, exposes the moment Glass's lies came to surface.

More often than not, those who commit these offenses tend to overshadow the good work done by honest and diligent journalists who make objectivity their lifeblood.

Yet Matt Taibbi claims in a New York Times article that objective journalism is an illusion. He says that, “Opinion can’t be extracted from reporting. The only question is whether or not it’s hidden.”

Which ties into to the notion of bias in political media.

A major argument that I see thanks to today’s political climate is the pitting of Democrat and Republican media consumers against each other due to each other’s “bias.” While it is true that many media outlets may have an inherent bias, the bias is not put there to do harm to the opposing side.

Source: Pew Research Center

With the advancement of technology and the Internet, we can customize our news sources to hear what we want to hear— not what's being spewed out of a general entertainment source. Critics argue that this tailoring tends to narrow people's worldview, making them even more biased. In my opinion, the customization of news isn't harming others because of its bias, but enlightening them.

So whose reporting is trustworthy with these tailored news sources? It's likely based on familiarity.

Taibbi opened his last paragraph in the Times article with this: “We live in a society now where people want to know who a journalist is before they decide whether or not to believe his or her reporting.” And that, to me, speaks volumes.

Source: Pew Research Center

According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of people trust their local news sources because they are familiar. They know the same people you know, they live in the same area you do, they are affected by the same things you are. So why not get to know more about someone before you believe what they say?


At the end of the day, bias is going to exist no matter what. We can keep it out of our essays and articles as much as we want, but it’s an inevitable human element. The opinions of others matter in this global world we live in today. Different points of view are great tools to have in any conversation because they open up avenues for problem-solving, empathy and overall communication. As long as the bias is not obstructing any truthful facts, then it is harmless.

Journalism Today: Is It Unethical to Put Our Opinions on Social Media?

Julia Gogol
jg152015@ohio.edu

Journalists using social media platforms to voice their personal opinions has long been an issue discussed by newspapers and the public alike. With technology advancing at such a rapid pace, do journalists have a right to let their voices be heard?

We all know people read the news from sources they know will tell them what they want to hear. My argument to that is this: if journalists stayed completely unbiased, people wouldn't pick one news source over another. The public would have the facts, not the opinionated truth provided to them by left-wing or right-wing editors.

As journalists, we have a responsibility to give the public the whole truth, whether we agree with that truth or not. People would then be able to form their own opinions and make their own arguments, without being swayed by bias. Journalists are in a unique position.  We are the medium between what's happening in the world around us and the screens in people's hands. We are influencers, and if we post our personal beliefs on social media, we are abusing that power.

Social media for journalists should be used as a platform to showcase your work. It's unnecessary to make comments about whatever tweet or Instagram post you disagree with. If it's something that controversial, give the facts, and I'm sure the majority will nod their heads in agreement.

With "fake news" and distrust of the media being as high as it is, giving the public the unbiased facts is more important than ever. According to a study performed by the Pew Research Center, "Only about two-in-ten Americans (22%) trust the information they get from local news organizations a lot, whether online or offline, and 18% say the same of national organizations."

Journalists today have more opportunities and channels to reach their audience than their previous colleagues could've ever dreamed of. According to the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, "Social media offer opportunities for news organizations to reach more people than ever before.  For young people, in particular, social media news feeds, not news websites, are their major news sources."

Courtesy of ING

On this contrasting survey above, you can see that, while 60 percent of journalists say they should remain unbiased on social media, 66 percent of them also say they express themselves differently on social media than they would on their traditional news platforms.

In regard to political opinions, EthicNet states, "If work in political parties, taking part in demonstrations and solving urgent social issues results or may result in a conflict of interests, raises or may raise the question of objectivity of mass media, it is not acceptable."

If it is unethical for a journalist to participate in a political demonstration, why would posting your opinion on a much more public form of media be any less jeopardizing to the trust of the media?

Journalists need to come to a consensus about whether or not to voice personal opinions on social media. I believe those thoughts are your own and do not need to be posted, Tweeted, Snapchatted, or any of the above. Journalists have opinions, everyone does. But, because of our unique situation and the influence we have over the public, those opinions should remain unvoiced, unheard, and completely our own.

Code of Ethics VS. Fake News

Monday, September 17

Julia Cogliano 

jc493114@ohio.edu 

WHAT IS THE CODE OF ETHICS? 

A Code of Ethics helps balance out the journalism world. There is a guideline that sets a standard for how each journalist should publish things, and give them an idea of what is considered morally right and what is considered morally wrong. However, in the journalism world, a lot of things are neither white, or black, but more in the "grey" area. Code of Ethics gives each journalist the opportunity to create their own ethics. Journalists are trusted by society to publish correct information. The Code of Ethics was made so that each journalist and reader both had an understanding that ethically and morally, only correct, reliable information should be posted to the public. 

OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS JOURNALISTS 

As journalists, as mentioned before, we are trusted to be aware of the Code of Ethics. This is ensuring that we have a clear understanding of how serious our job is to inform the public of morally correct information. That being said, each Journalist needs to have their own understanding of the Code of Ethics. According to Focus more on fighting Bad Journalism, not on Fake news , the article states that journalists should worry about posting real information, instead of posting anything just to seem more trusting or more reliable than another journalist. By having their own understanding of the Code of Ethics, journalists are able to have a guideline of their work to make sure they are publishing correct information to the public, and the public will be able to trust the information is ethically correct. 

WHAT IS FAKE NEWS?

For the past two years, the saying "Fake News," has been on the rise. However, does anyone know what exactly fake news is? How can one source claim that they have factual information, and then another person claim that it is a complete hoax? This ties into Code of Ethics because journalists inform the public, and have a duty to serve the public in an honest way. Readers have the choice to believe each thing they read or hear, and make their own personal decision based on who is giving the information, and what support they have to make the information seem valid. 

HOW CAN WE AVOID FAKE NEWS?

As journalists, we need to make quick decisions. While reviewing an article, we should always look at the sources and see if we agree with the person who is claiming that an article uses reliable sources, and then question if can trust the information being told. We can avoid fake news by making sure that we are posting reliable, true, and morally correct information out into the world. By taking responsibility ourselves, we are ensuring that truthful, reliable, and real  news is being published. However, we can not control what other Journalists post. We can take matters into our own hands by expressing what we feel is morally correct for a Journalist to post, and then checking other Journalists sources and information before we share information on websites such as Facebook. In the article When it comes to the academic study of fake news, "bullshit receptivity," is a thing, fake polls are brought up. Anything on the internet can be as easily fake as it is real. In my opinion, as journalists, the greatest thing we can do to avoid fake news is to make sure we are using sources that we personally trust, to avoid publishing any information with bad support such as fake polls. 

HOW DOES FAKE NEWS AFFECT SOCIETY?

Fake news affects society greatly. Fake news has been around for a while, however within the past few years the saying has becoming known to much more people. Recently, journalists have struggled with gaining the public's trust. Fake news makes readers question which information is true or false, which has the public questioning almost every article until they do their own research and make their own opinion. 

Picture Courtesy of Medium.com 

https://medium.com/@PsychBehind/psychology-behind-fake-news-c5dd4c43d680