Doesn't Tragedy Deserve Respect?

Brooke Balzano
bb240415@ohio.edu

In today's world, tragedy is an unfortunate reoccurrence. Innocent lives are lost repeatedly, and our world has started to get used to hearing about mass shootings. For years the most notable shooting was Columbine in 1999, where 13 innocent people lost their lives. No one anticipated this tragedy to happen to them when they woke up that morning. No one realized what words would be their last. As tragedy struck, news outlets gathered to the Denver high school and began to broadcast the news. People deserved to know about the shooting and it created awareness for family members who could not contact their loved one, but when is the news coverage too much?

On December 14, 2012, I was sitting in my art classroom when my home state was changed forever. The teacher stopped the class from working to alert everyone that there had been a school shooting in Newtown, only 45 minutes away from my high school. I went on to Google and searched Newtown, Connecticut shooting to learn that Sandy Hook Elementary School had faced a tragedy that would compare to no other. Someone had entered the school with an AR-15 and murdered innocent children. Children who likely never had learned how to ride a bike, had their first kiss or lost their baby teeth. Children who would never learn to drive, legally drink alcohol or get married. Children who did not know that when they said goodbye to their parents that Friday morning, it would be the last time they saw them.

Source: WPTV 

News stations fled to the scene, each one trying to gain maximum coverage and break the stories first. This tragedy terrified residents of Connecticut but relied heavily on these reports for updated information. As time went on in the day, the death count seemed to raise little by little. It was a day I will never forget. On Monday morning, an announcement was made that the tragedy hit even closer to home because one of the children who lost their life was the grandson of Mrs. Pinto, a home-economics teacher.

Headline after headline was filled with the tragedy of Sandy Hook. There was even a conspiracy theory released that stated the shooting was entirely fabricated by the government and that the children who died never existed in the first place.

In a time filled with darkness, Connecticut natives were searching for some kind of light. News outlets covered funerals of children which began to blur the line of reporting for the interest of the people and being respectful. This massacre was a national story causing people all over the country to pay their respects to the family in any way that they could, although it seemed that local news stations couldn't do the same.

Victor Cruz, then a wide-receiver for the New York Giants, paid his respects to the family of Jack Pinto, a 6-year-old whose life was lost during the shooting. Cruz had learned that Jack was a Giants fan and that he (Cruz) was his favorite player, so he chose to pay his respects to him on the field. Victor Cruz stepped out on that Sunday with "R.I.P. Jack Pinto" and "My Hero" written on his cleats to honor him. He later drove to Newton to meet with the Pinto family and pay his respects in person, instead of just on the field.

Source: GumBumper

In a world filled with tragedy, it's easy to focus on the negatives. Even though "if it bleeds, it leads" may be a standard phrase heard in the newsroom, those who have bled become the subject of a tragedy. The lives that are written about in these stories are real people with families who are impacted and have feelings, so shouldn't respect go hand in hand with the headline?

Covering Breaking Stories and Accuracy

Hunter Graffice
hg551416@ohio.edu

In today's society, journalists are expected to report on a story almost instantly. The 24/7 news cycle has created an environment where journalists need to get a story out as quickly as possible, but the ethical challenge is reporting the story accurately and making sure it is fair to the sources/people affected.

In the past weekend, a shooting occurred in a Pittsburgh synagogue. A few hours after the initial reports came in, media outlets as big as People were reporting that one of the victims was a Holocaust survivor. The news spread like wildfire and the detail about one of the victims being a Holocaust survivor was especially haunting, but it wasn't even true. However, the story had already been spread as thousands, and probably millions, of Americans read the story. A tweet even went viral, spreading the misinformation to at least 300,000 different people. A correction was later issued, but the damage had already been done. Thousands of Americans believed, and some still believe, that one of the victims was a Holocaust survivor. The fact that the victim was not a Holocaust survivor does not lessen the atrocity of the event or change the story. Yet, there will be an enormous effect because of the mistake. In future arguments, proponents of gun control will cite the fact that the victim survived the Holocaust only to be killed in an American synagogue. Thus, misinformation will breed false claims and arguments that simply aren't true, creating a maelstrom of complacency and ignorance at the fault of the journalist.

Photo courtesy of Los Angeles Times

When information like that is falsely reported, it only further emboldens claims of "fake news" and the idea of the media being an enemy of the public. As the president continues to use this dialogue, it's imperative for journalists and news organizations to be completely accurate in their reporting and ensure that the truth is being told in these stories.

An element for journalists to keep in mind is the effect the words will have on the public and on those affected. In the story above, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people were exposed to a false piece of information. That detail shaped thousands of viewpoints and the story as a whole. By remembering the impact of details, it encourages journalists to value accuracy and transparency above anything else.

The best thing for a journalist to do is to acknowledge that they must be quick in their reporting and present the facts as they are. Also, they must recognize that telling an accurate story is much more important and carries much more weight than pushing out a story just to be the first to report it. While it sounds easy in theory, this of course is much more difficult in practice. However, audiences value the truth and by keeping the idea of accuracy in their mind, journalists can still report quickly and publish an engaging story. The fate of those affected, and the entire story, rests on it.

Feeding the Beast or Pumping the Brakes

Charles Garverick
cg701315@ohio.edu

Journalists are in a difficult situation. We live in a society today where breaking news has become the focus for news reporters. It's made having to throw ethics out the window when considering if/when to publish information -- something reporters are not a fun of.

“The news cycle is now 24/7 due to the Internet,” said Amanda Lamb, a 20-year crime-reporting veteran at WRAL-TV in Raleigh, N.C. “We no longer work for the next show. We work for the next five minutes on the Web.”

That's why from that article, the pressure is real for reporters to get information out on the internet as quickly as possible and can't afford to wait until their evening newscast. Keeping that in mind is the challenge that people face in newsrooms because they balance out the need to know now vs. making sure that the information they post does not defame or shine a bad light on the victim.

This was very evident over this past weekend with the mass shooting in Pittsburgh. I thought that CBS News did an excellent job with how they posted/reported on the issue. 

In their first intial report with the aid of The AP, they chose to explain as much information they knew about each victim.  As the "theme" of the readings was called "It Bleeds, It Leads," yes, CBS News led with something that had to do with death, but they got quotes of little anecdotes of these people's lives to humanize the story. 

CBS News did its best to respect the victims by telling their life stories. Credit: CBS News

That story was updated in live time throughout the next 90 minutes to provide additional facts that they learned in the field. The next story that proceeded that initial breaking-news story had live feed updates for what was happening with the shooter -- live at the scene. 

That story contained information with authorities -- information they could confirm. It also had information on what was next for President Trump.

Overall, covering tragedies are extremely difficult. From the first article, it mentioned that "when it comes to technology, it almost always wins over tradition." That's  a statement that carries a lot of weight for reporters, but with the example above,  I still think it's possible to do both, you just have to know what you're doing. 

If it Bleeds, it Leads Respectfully

By: Emma Kennedy
ek001915@ohio.edu

As journalists we have a requirement to report on breaking news, but we also have to keep in mind the ethics of putting a private citizen in the hot seat. Minors are never exposed in the media but maybe we should allow adults the same privacy.

We all know the classic saying "if it bleeds, it leads," when horrific events happen they are always breaking news stories. But we have to remember that the people involved in these horrific events have personal lives and family members and do not always want their face plastered all over computer screens.

A great example of this is the death of Mollie Tibbetts, a student from Iowa who was murdered. Her disappearance made headlines as did the discovery of her death because that portion of the story was breaking news. But soon after, her death became politicized because the man who killed her was an immigrant. Conservatives attempted to use her death as a reason to strengthen immigration policies and border patrol.

cnn.com

Tibbetts' family members have pleaded for the publicity to stop because they do not agree with the conservatives and do not want Tibbetts' death to be politicized. As journalists, we need to respect this because after her death Tibbetts no longer news worthy and there is no need to exploit her.

However, this is an extremely fine line because this is another post about Tibbetts, but she is news worthy again because of the over politicization of her death. If her death was never politicized and overly reported we would not need to worry about continuing to invade on her family's privacy.

As journalists, we need to be respectful when covering tragic events. We need to remember that when we cover deaths and mass casualties that means we are also covering grieving families. No matter who dies there is always someone who is grieving the loss and as journalists we need to respect that.

We need to be careful that what we write could completely change someone's life forever. If we write something bad about a person without a good reason was it worth ruining their life and the way people perceive them?

The most important part of a story is the news worthiness of the content. If a story is not news worthy we need to take a step back and weigh the consequences of running it against the positives.

Covering mass shootings and horrific events is a tough situation for reporters, they need to be published and quickly. But we need to remember the feelings of the people we are talking to and the feelings of those affected that will read it. Yes ten people died, but those people have more meaning than a headline.

We need to remember that as journalists we shape how the public feels about certain things and how we write shapes their opinions. Exploiting this is easy, so we need to stay vigilant when covering breaking news and stay ethical. There is never a need to ruin the life of a private citizen for a few extra clicks.

Respectfully Reporting on Mass Shootings

Natalie Butko
nb861214@ohio.edu

After a sad weekend of closely following the reports of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in my home city of Pittsburgh, I started to think about the multiple reports I had read. I read tweets from local reporters on the scene, articles from national media outlets such as the New York Times, and Facebook posts from friends who were affected by the tragedy. Should I trust all of these sources?

The question of trusting a source is asked far too often during tragedies like the one that took place in Pittsburgh this past weekend. Why do we question sources such as media outlets and loved ones that we should trust? Social media has changed how fast news spreads. Everyone from reporters to witnesses are fighting to report what is happening first. This fast-paced reporting style is elevated even more so when there is a tragedy.

Fast reporting by both the public and journalists in times of tragedy can lead to false information and more panic. How you report on a crime can impact others. Whether you're a journalist, witness, or dedicated social media user, keep the following tips in mind if you find yourself reporting on a tragedy.

1. Report on the attacker carefully. Irresponsible reporting such as glorifying the attacker can encourage copycat behavior. Use the perpetrator's name and photo sparingly in reports. Avoid using pictures of the perpetrator with guns or showing violence.

2. Don't increase prejudice around mental health. Many mass shooting tragedies are linked to mental illnesses. However, this is not always the case or attackers have not been formally diagnosed. Avoid stereotyping and always remember to include resources if mentioned. For example, "For help with emotional distress and/or suicidal thoughts, visit www.mentalhealth.gov."

3. Aim to educate and comfort. Unless confirmed by an official police source, be cautious about spreading information. Misinformation can cause a panic amongst the public, especially families of potential victims. Reporting should focus on facts and the public's need to know such as an ongoing threat.

4. Report on victims. This can sometimes be the hardest part of a tragedy to report. The stories of the victims are an important part and often remind readers of the amazing communities that have been affected. However, it is important to respect the victims and their families that are grieving. "It's a funeral, people -- not a TV station!" says a man to a crowd of journalists outside a funeral for one of the Newtown, Connecticut victims.

5. Including a manifesto? This is a tough decision that should be made case to case. A perpetrator's manifesto should only be reported or released when it adds important information to a story.

Source: www.reportingonmassshootings.org

Reporting on a mass shooting is difficult. With each act of terror that takes place, the reporting doesn't get any easier. Whether a member of the public or a seasoned journalist, reporters must keep in mind that the information will affect people. The goal should be to comfort and inform rather than to cause panic and encourage repeat behaviors. To brush up on even more tips for reporting on senseless tragedies such as the one in Pittsburgh just this weekend, visit the Reporting on Mass Shooting website.

Exploitation Versus the Need to Report

Helen Horton

hh157115@ohio.edu

Balance is key in every aspect of our lives. Without balance, our bread would not rise properly, our checkbooks would be off, and all of our buildings would be slanted and uneven. Balance also plays a role in journalism when it comes to debating whether the need to report a source or story is worth the exploitation and ethical risks.

Will Cooper spoke on Wednesday, October 24, as a part of the 90 Minutes series here on campus about journalism, masculinity, and the importance of ethics. Cooper is an alum of Ohio University, as well as one of the founders of campus's very own, Backdrop Magazine. He is currently a senior editor for Vice and he credits his media ethics class for giving him the ethical skills he needs to succeed in the world of journalism. "Ethics come in every step of the way," said Cooper, illustrating that ethics separates the good journalists from the great ones as it's not a class requirement at every institution. 

Cooper specifically dove into balancing reporting on underprivileged people versus exploiting them, during the discussion. He highlighted an example of this in a piece he created on the Cleveland Strangler. Cooper said that while it was difficult and uncomfortable to interview those victims, they were stronger and more resilient than he could have ever imagined. Cooper admitted that his fear was that his interview would come off on a negative start, wondering if his questions were the right, ethical ones to present to the subjects. The women were more than capable to have not only a good interview but a fantastic one, where they took the lead and ran the show.  This proves that great content comes from being uncomfortable if done in a respectful and ethical way.

The Columbia Journalism Review published a piece about how people who have been betrayed by the press due to inaccuracies are willing to go on the news again, as they think that any news exposure is good exposure. 

"And while subjects rarely feel betrayed, they do often feel manipulated and pressured, especially in the wake of traumatic events. In fact, the practices that subjects find most exploitative are the ones baked into journalistic routines, responses to the daily pressures of journalistic work, like deadlines. Often, the whole experience s more surreal to subjects than it is damaging."

This is prevalent in today's news cycle, as mass shootings and tragedies have become more commonplace on our front pages.

During the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, reporters would flood the area and disrupt families' grieving processes to get the next big headline. Broadcasting & Cable detailed how the waves of media would swarm the surrounding area and harass residents for stories, information, and clickbait.

"Though the media crush has thinned considerable, there remains an uneasy relationship between the reporters and the residents. A woman keeps driving by, say the station staffers, telling everyone to 'get the hell out.'" The local media treated their neighbors with as much privacy and respect that they could muster, while foreign crews were focused solely on news.

"The remaining reporters are pleased to see the overseas crews have largely left. The sense of decorum was different with the foreigners, they say; they share reports of sneaking into private services, crossing police tape and chasing hearses from the non-U.S. reporting staffs."

The =n why are so many people feeling manipulated by the media? The desire for urgency and to "feed the machine" plays a large role, according to Poynter. We feed the machine so furiously thanks to the internet. The 24/7 lifestyle of our Androids and iPhones have made breaking news more accessible than ever, thanks to real-time notifications from companies like CNN, The New York Times, and Fox. This has fueled journalists into a deadline-crazed frenzy, much more so than the pre-internet newsrooms.

And when deadlines are the only thing on the mind, a lot tends to be left out. Pew Research Center surveyed the media's best and worst traits and showed that the majority believe the news in biased and makes poor choices in its reporting.

Source: Pew Research Center

At the end of the day, the ethical decision for a reporter is to not sacrifice the livelihood and respect of a person for the glory of a story. That is why it is key for journalists to keep ethics in mind when interviewing and writing. The news becomes the opposite of newsworthy if the information gathered is done in an unethical and hasty fashion.

Why Do Men Act This Way?

Ethan Sands
es700016@ohio.edu

There are people in this world who have begun to normalize all men. Usually because of some sort of pain that they have gone through in relation to a guy from their past. But has anyone really delved into why these men have been so toxic, or their childhood that could have pushed them to be harmful. Let me make myself clear though, I am not talking about serial killers or rapists who get off on their sentences because of their past. I am more so referring to the men who have led women on, don't put in effort where it is due and, sadly, men who cheat on their girlfriends.

Masculinity is something that has been questioned for a long time because of how it has been illustrated by men and perceived by women. The fact that there has been and overarching change in the understanding of masculinity. There is a lot to be said of how the LGBTQ+ community has had an impact on the way men freely experiment with their masculinity.

There are examples of people who step over these boundaries of masculinity that we seem to be boxed in as men. The idea that clothing can be sexual or have a single-sex has been starting to change. Jaden Smith has been seen to openly wear what he wants and not care about the thoughts and reactions of anyone, even his father.

 

Jaden Smith has become an icon for stepping beyond the masculine beliefs that men can only wear a certain style of clothing. In a recent interview on a new series on Facebook called "Red Table Talk," he stated that he began to wear the skirt to simply look fly. Though his father "has his feelings" about the style, he never rejected it. In fact, this is indication that Will and Jada Smith allowed Jaden and Willow to have freedom with their beliefs. Willow also tests the standard of femininity because of her unshaved underarms. This family is the epitome of change as they have started the trend of being different.

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018, there was an event held that allowed students to ask Will Cooper, an Ohio University alum who now works at Vice, questions. He discussed the toxic masculinity in its essence. He elaborated on the topics discussed in his piece, "All Masculinity is Toxic." The point that Cooper made was striking as he defines masculinity as an oppressor. In his dialogue on Wednesday, he went deeper into the topic as he broke down how he related to the information he gained from John Stoltenberg. Cooper described how his emotions were derived from the lack of emotion that he received from his father. He stated that because of his experience with strictly one feeling from his dad that he did not know how to act out of that small box. Cooper then mentioned that throughout his journey as a college student, he had to teach himself how to open up to other emotions. This is seen in his piece from 2017, "I Was Forced to Fight, Now I'm Learning to Cry," where he has a quote that defines who he was as a person - "Never in my life have I witnessed a man in my family cry--not my grandfathers, not my father, and not my older brothers."

I believe that a lot of men could make this distinct connection if they only looked within themselves to find it. This is by no means an easy task but to combat the disdain that we have as men for women. Our masculinity is already a power, why do we have to use it against them?

Masculinity and Ethics: A Look Into the "Macho Man"

Julia Gogol
jg152015@ohio.edu

The conversation around the ethics of the "macho man" has been on the rise ever since the election of our infamous "grab her by the pussy" president.  Are ethics different for men, and should they be different?  And how does the media's portrayal of men lead us to accept and even encourage these differences?

Wilbert Cooper, senior editor at VICE Media, pointed out during his interview at Ohio University's 90 Minutes series that the black man in particular is in a sort of limbo of ethics.  As a man, he is supposed to be masculine, but as a black person, he is oppressed.  The in between, he said, is where the anger and frustration emanates from.

"[My father] always tried to speak to me like I was a little man," writes Cooper in his article, Dead or in Jail: The Burden of Being a Black Man in America.  "And not because he was on some cheap machismo trip or because he had a taste for the macabre—it was because he legitimately thought if I didn't understand this lesson early on, I might not make it to age 25."

Men of color in particular have a unique take on different ethical questions.  As Cooper said, they are taught from a young age to be masculine and not to show any emotions.  During the interview, he recalled one of his college girlfriends telling him she knew he wasn't mad at her, but that it was the only emotion he ever put out for the world to see.

Men should not, under any circumstance, feel forced to hide their emotions.

Our society has put men on a pedestal where they watched and judged.  Cooper relates the situation today back to slavery.  In plantations, white men were the masters, their wives were property, and the slaves were less than property.  Cooper believes this is the reason why so many black men today feel the need to take over that "master" position and treat their women as property and be the boss.

Take, for example, this image below:

Image courtesy of Patheos

The Ugandan Minister of Ethics literally said rape is okay as long as it is men raping women.  How does this mindset become ingrained and accepted within a society?

Cooper has worked to change this type of mindset in his own life.

With the help of his fiancé and friends, Cooper has worked to achieve and is still working on his mindset that it is okay to cry and show emotion, and it is okay to tell someone you love them.  That isn't weakness — it's strength.

In an article by the National Review, Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum talks about how he believes Republicans are using his ethics scandal to "reinforce stereotypes about black men."

Whether that be true or not, I think we can all agree the media plays a huge role in what society believes about any person or group of people.  While we all have our own personal codes of ethics, the rules should be the same for any person of any gender or skin color.  No man, white or black, should treat women like property, and no man, white or black, should be afraid to cry.

Readers Beware

Maureen O'Brien
mb163416@ohio.edu

The world of online journalism is reliant on advertisements and sponsorship, that is assured. However, the integrity of journalistic stories is in peril due to the increasing use of "native advertising," stories or ads that are almost indistinguishable from news stories. Readers need to be wary of where the content they read comes from.

According to ShareThrough, "native advertising is a form of paid media where the ad experience follows the natural form and function of the user experience in which it is placed." Because of the convincing format of these ads, readers may not be able to recognize that what they are reading is actually paid advertising or sponsored content. This lack of transparency goes against what good journalism stands for.

Journalism exists to inform the public about important and newsworthy information. When ads are presented in a way that seems like a news narrative, rather than a push to buy a product, it is a misuse of the trust that readers put in newsroom employees.

According to Word Stream, there are good and bad examples of native advertising. Good examples are ones that have content that users would still find interesting, and fit with the magazine or paper's overall content scene. For example, Vanity Fair teamed with Hennessy to create a written and video piece that fit the brand image they had already created for themselves. The piece is still genuinely interesting to their users, and has a distinguishable "SPONSOR CONTENT" above the title.

Not everyone can display native advertising at this standard. It is imperative that guidelines are set to avoid the blurring of the line between real news stories and paid content. The agenda behind sponsor content needs to be clear to readers from the beginning so that they can have all of the facts to make an educated decision about how to approach the article. When consumers look at an ad that they KNOW is an ad, they have a veil of skepticism. This skepticism isn't present when users don't know they're trying to be sold a promise, so they are more able to be duped.

While online journalism is reliant on paid advertisements and sponsorship, it is also important to remember that the highest quality online media needs to hold is integrity. 

Misleading Ads Allow Accusations of Fake News

Tee Willis
tw532416

Let's be honest: we're all tired of hearing the phrase "fake news." It's everywhere we turn, and as journalists, we can't escape it. Our very own president has infamously accused the people of the press time after time for reporting fake and misleading stories. As sickening as it is to hear, it really makes us stop and think about it. There truly are misleading stories, information and posts coming from all kinds of different sources.

This problem most recently has translated to advertising. We are now at the point where advertisements have become misleading in the way they appear, especially online and in digital journalism. While ads now are typically what keeps a lot of publications going, they have become somewhat damaging in our ability to trust certain sources.

This new journalistic epidemic is what has become known as "native advertising." This new wave of ads are often disguised in the content of a page and is designed to look as if it is a part of the story or news being presented. This new practice slows the progress we've made over time in trying to become more credible journalists. It's hard to seem credible if our readers feel as if they're being misled. The major dilemma here is that readers aren't always being explicitly informed that they are viewing an advertisement and these ads have become hard to distinguish from real news.

Another ethical issue that many are trying to navigate now is branded content. Many brands and companies now sponsor and pay for specific types of content to be put out. This has mostly become a PR strategy for advertisers looking to get their brands out on another platform. PRSA sets up some helpful guidelines to help with these issues It is helpful in a few ways to publications as well. When the news organizations are looking for both stories and people to pay for those stories, they typically turn to this practice of branded content. It's a win-win for the organization, but some people do have criticisms.

image from Netimperative.com

Personally, I don't believe that branded content is unethical if done right. I feel that sponsoring a story or series can sometimes allow readers and viewers an opportunity to experience that brand in a different way or become more familiar with them. And on the positive side for the publication, there comes money from someone who knows you have an influence on the way that people think and consume content. This is especially important when looking at print journalism because the industry is changing so vastly. Many people aren't reading or consuming print in this day and age. This leaves many publications struggling for money and relying on ads to generate revenue. As advertisers begin to sponsor stories and content, it gives the publication a story and the funding to carry it out.

Guideline to Advertising and Branding

Ethan Sands

es700016@ohio.edu


The world has turned digital, and every outlet is trying to find their way into the peoples' hands. There isn't just one way to do it so these platforms strategize and determine the best way to sometimes publish the best content, but in most cases, get the most clicks on their content.

The most recent ways we've seen outlets create and post content that is accessible and interesting to the viewer is through advertising and branding. These two have become extremely intertwined in the media as publishers have used various ways to sneak content into their pieces without being penalized.

Advertising and branding have always been a common theme, but the way that it is being done now can be seen as skeptical or anonymous. This can come off as unethical because of the rules that still must be followed as journalist to retain loyalty and fairness to the reader. Forbes has created a scapegoat for themselves. They have begun to use links or prominent statements that can encourage the reader to understand that it is branded content or native ads, but it is not necessarily clear for the reader.

Branding may have been around for athletes and musicians, but this is a whole different necessity. Branding for advertisements has been brought up the because of the need for editorial content. Though like every new tool in the journalism industry, this comes with ethical dilemmas. There needs to still be a process which journalists follow to ensure that PRSA lists. A key rule that is listed is, "Don’t let it become a substitute for earned media. Just because you post branded content doesn’t mean that you should stop working with the PR community to develop stories that deserve publication." This rule can play a huge role in the amount of branded content the media uses because they don't want to be seen as single-minded.

Overall, these new tools will have an immense impact on the media community and the freedom, creativity and access they can have and will receive because of these options.




Advertising can play a role in the connections that the media makes with other campaigns that they advertise but also it can show the focal interest of the organization. This has been done by media outlets like Nike with their Colin Kaepernick campaign. This not only connected Nike to Colin Kaepernick but to the African American that his movement is affiliated with. This was huge not only for the movement but for the rest of the community because for such a long time there was such a disapproval of what Kaepernick was doing. After this advertisement, it seemed as if the people who were in the shadows, but were in agreement, surfaced. The advertisement did numbers for Nike as well. As many people burned their Nike apparel against their support of Kaepernick, the number seemed to be outweighed by the people in support of Nike for their stance. The Guardian gave a closer insight to the numbers of how well Nike really did after the Kaepernick ad, "According to Edison Trends, a digital commerce research company: 'Nike sales grew 31% from Sunday through Tuesday over Labor Day this year, besting 2017’s comparative 17% increase.'"

The digital era has sprung. These advertisements and branding strategies can put organizations and platforms on to the next level. They have the potential to be more interesting and increasingly influential, but only if these tools are handled correctly by the journalist who use them.

Strengthened Connection

Cassidy Selep
cs743115@ohio.edu

Whenever I tell people that I am a strategic communication major, they always assume that I am in the School of Communication Studies. In reality, I am a student in the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism. I am then bombarded with questions as to why a major focused on public relations is in the journalism school. I sometimes struggle with the answer, but the connection between public relations and journalism is stronger than one might assume. In fact, the connection is only getting stronger.

The emergence of "native advertising" is a factor that strengthens the ties between the two studies. Native advertising is sponsored content on a news organization website that looks and reads as if it is a journalistic article. Native advertising can be seen in various forms.

Ava Sirrah's article on Media Shift highlights the partnership between The New York Times and Samsung to bring their readers the Daily 360. Michael Sebastian's article on Ad Age also highlighted the steps that news organization like The Atlantic and New Yorker have taken to inform their readers that an article is actually an advertisement.

In light of this new addition to the communication world, the American Society of Magazine Editors has released a set of guidelines for organizations to deal with native advertising. These guidelines recommend that native advertising uses a different font and format than the typical journalistic articles. It also recommends that the news organization put a disclaimer at the beginning of the article to alert the reader that it is an advertisement.

Photo courtesy of ASME

The idea of native advertising can be beneficial for both news organization and public relations firms. The news organization will receive revenue, and the public relations firm will receive press for their client. However, both organizations need to be careful. Ann Willets warns organizations about this in her article for the Public Relations Society of America.

News organizations need to be careful not to post too many native advertisements and risk losing their audience. Public relations firms need to be careful to be truthful to the public. It is also important that the reader be active in figuring out whether what they are reading is native advertising or not. The reader, however, should not be a detective; do not make this task difficult for the reader.

The Effect of Native Advertising

Katherine Vermes
kv266915@ohio.edu

Being able to make a clear distinction between news content and advertisements is an aspect of news websites that is becoming more and more difficult to define with the rise of "native advertising." With this fairly new concept, marketing content is made to look like the articles on websites, and often uses vague or misleading wording to make it a challenge for readers to recognize the difference. As explained in this LA Times column from 2016, the main contrast is that "the goal of journalism is to inform and enlighten," but advertising aims "to influence your thinking and behavior," usually for the purpose of selling a product.

But how does this affect the trust that readers place in media organizations? According to Mediashift, this kind of advertising "jeopardizes the editorial independence of newsrooms as journalists become aware of what advertisers want them to discuss." And if this content is influence by an outside company or organization, then news sites need to make the difference between sponsored content and their own more clear, not less.

Blurring the Line Has Become a Trend

The following graph portrays the projected spending on "native advertising" around the world, comparing 2015 spending to that of 2018.

Photo courtesy of statista.com

Why is "native advertising" becoming so popular? One significant reason is the money that comes from it. If advertisers want content to look like news, and will pay more for it, then struggling newsrooms will be much more easily influenced to do so. This means the media companies that are suffering the most financially could be the most influenced, and that is usually smaller, more localized news sources, which also happen to be the more trusted sources of content among audiences.

"Native advertising" can effect how media organizations cover certain brands that sponsor them. If a newsroom is being largely supported by the money of an outside source, this will create a bias when it comes to stories about that brand. And with the fading line between types of content, any potential biases can become hidden to audiences.

Using Labels

Clearly portraying to audiences what is advertising is not always clear on social media websites and apps either. According the the LA Times, Facebook only uses "small gray print to say, ambiguously, 'sponsored,'" while Twitter just says "promoted." I have noticed this in my experience with using Twitter, and have often read this branded content seriously before recognizing the easily-overlooked "label."

Even the most respected organizations have to be careful with this new trend. For example, when The New York Times began, according to NiemanLab, "partnering with Samsung, which gave the Times the equipment to produce" videos for a 360-degree video series. But labeling the two companies as "partners" could also be seen as misleading to readers, especially with Samsung giving the newsroom equipment for a project, promoting itself in the process.

The Audience's Responsibility

Ultimately, readers need to be more careful in how they view the content on news sites in order to avoid being mislead. If audiences can be trained and educated on media literacy, then the trend may begin to slow down. If advertisers do not see the amount of profit coming from "native advertising" that they do now, then they will begin pushing for more lucrative methods of media marketing. Pushing for clearer labels on content could be a start for this, as well.

It's Always About the Money but What About Transparency?

 Murphy Patterson
 mp385915@ohio.edu

We like to think that we know an advertisement when we see one, right? Well, like the great Bob Dylan said, these times they are a-changin'. Whether you call them native ads, branded content or sponsored content, these ads are made to look like editorial content and have readers everywhere thinking they are reading an article written by a journalist. There are many ethical concerns when dealing with this type of advertising, but money seems to be taking attention away from the ethical issues.

People are not paying for online journalism and that is hurting newspapers and sites that rely on subscriptions. This is the main reason for the rise of native advertising. Since the ads look so much like real editorial journalism, people pay attention to them and rarely realize they are reading an advertisement. Readers have begun to turn a blind eye to advertisements and with ad-blocking technology, advertising companies have to find new ways to get their message out to consumers. This has forced them to be creative and find ways to reach readers, and to have readers actually pay attention.

This type of advertising has created an economic boom for the advertising industry. According to the Pew Research Center, native advertising created $4.6 billion in revenue in 2017. When putting up such big numbers of revenue, advertising companies will pay newspapers to run their ads because they know native advertisements are working better than banner ads or other forms of online advertisements.

When talking about advertisements in print media, ethical challenges come up. With native advertisements there are many ethical issues, and the biggest one is transparency. As journalists we should pride ourselves on reporting truth and being transparent. The lines get extremely fuzzy when journalistic publications are allowing ads that readers are unable to distinguish from actual news stories. How is this being transparent? Comedian and host of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver, talks about how advertising and news should be looked at like we look at church and state. We want to keep the two separated for specific reasons. The reason we should keep ads out of our news is so we do remain transparent.

                                          Video Via: Last Week Tonight (HBO)

With major publications, such as the The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times using native advertising, there is risk for readers to become less trustworthy of their sources. Journalists can lose credibility from these ads. As journalists, we should stand up to these ads and demand some sort of guidelines that guarantee readers won't be mislead and will be able to tell what is and advertisement or sponsored content, and what is true editorial content. One thing I believed to be a good rule for native ads, is to have the ads use a different font and style than the main editorial content of the publication. ASME is implementing many guidelines such as this to allow readers to know what is advertising and what is not.

Journalists' credibility has been at risk for a decent period of time and native ads aren't doing us any favors in regaining our credibility. We have to be able to stick to our main values and continue being transparent with our readers. Readers want to be able to trust news sources, but will have trouble doing that when advertisements are being made to look like news stories. We as journalists need to take this more into account and stand up for guidelines to make native advertising more recognizable.

Blurred Ads?

Jacquez Printup
jp583215@ohio.edu


In "The Ethics of Branded Content," Ann Willets goes into detail about the potentially blurred lines of how people that work in the public relations field should interact with branded content. First, what exactly is "branded content?" According to Medium.com, branded content is "content that does not involve traditional advertising. It can include articles, videos, podcasts, and even live elements that bring relevant value to the consumer. It is not advertising in the way most people think of."

The problem is not the branded content itself, it is the fact that it is becoming more and more challenging for readers to be able to tell the difference between advertising and journalism. One of the big ethical challenges that was written about in this article was the issue of trust. Trust and honesty are two of the biggest commodities that exist in journalism. One, as the journalist, you are to be honest with everything you do because you are representing not only yourself, but your employer as well. And two, trust is important because the public relies on us to bring them news that is honest and relevant. So if the content that we are putting out in reality is paid advertising and not and editorial piece, we will lose the public's trust.

Another way companies are able to promote their stuff without creating advertisments is by using social media influencers. In other words, social media influencers are people who have big followings on social media. What these companies do is reach out to these people and reward them with money and products to post on their social media pages about how good their product is. Recently, more and more of these influencers will either start or end their post with "#Ad", or label it with "Paid Partnership with *blank*" which lets their followers know that the content they just posted is an advertisement. This is an ethical choice that ties into what was mentioned earlier about trust.

21six.com

In this YouTube video, ABC News did a story with a well-known fashion influencer who went in depth and described how these designers and companies work with her and how they work together to present content to the masses. Again, this is a common strategy that many companies use with well known YouTubers, actors, musicians and other public figures to get more traffic pointing towards their products. 

One example of branded content is The Lego Movie. A lot of people did not know this, but this movie was a crafted 90-minute advertisement that taught a lot of important values to the viewers, mainly kids, that watched it. Now after watching, kids everywhere are connected with Legos and parents are influenced to buy them. 

Personally, I do not think this is unethical at all and I do not see a problem with it. It is a movie that was targeted and aim towards children and that's exactly what it did. Using the movie as an advertisement strategy I do not find to be wrong, but a great tool to promote their products.

Does Branded Content Raise Ethical Concerns?

Jake Wernick
jw912314@ohio.edu

Reading "The Ethics of Branded Content" by Ann Willets made me think about an ethical issue that does not often occur to me as an "ethical issue." As a marketing major, thinking about the term "branded content" does not as much make me think about ethical issues, as much as it draws my interest. In fact, branded content is actually a field that I am heavily interested in exploring as a career path. The reason for this is not only does branded content help draw revenue for companies, but it also can be used creatively to come up with interesting content. For example, one media outlet that I am a big fan of is the music outlet Genius. Over the summer, they partnered with 1800 Tequila to put together "Refined Rap Trivia," a contest to test participants' knowledge of hip-hop. They offered one lucky contestant the opportunity to face off one-on-one with Chicago rapper Vic Mensa in a "final battle."

Photo via: Genius

To me, this is not only an interesting and creative example of branded content, but also one that in my opinion, does not raise any ethical concerns. There is no type of deception involved in this advertisement, but instead, the advertisement does offer the viewer an opportunity to earn a reward, with little to no cost for them to do so. The advertisement also always makes it clear that the content is brought to you by both Genius and 1800, to not only remind the viewer that they are being advertised to for their own benefit, but also to remind them who it is that is bringing them that content, for the advertiser(s) benefit.

Thinking about the subject more, it is understandable how many people may have skepticism in regards to branded content. Many media outlets use it as sole sources of content. Oftentimes, their use of it makes it sometimes may make it difficult for viewers to determine what is and is not an advertisement. With this problem, viewers may be more susceptible to the advertising, and thus, an easy target. In order to counter this, it is important that media outlets find balance and also properly label branded content as such. No media outlet should be solely focused on paid advertising, as this takes away from the true heart of journalism, and instead, focuses solely on turning a profit. It is also very important that media outlets properly label brand content as such in order to let their viewers know that they are being exposed to an advertisement. From there, it is up to the viewer whether they allow themselves to be influenced by the content. While many people may believe that it is up to them whether they are influenced by content or not regardless, an advertiser who is working twice as hard to persuade the viewer can be more likely to have an impact on someone who believes they are just viewing normal content. As long as outlets do not attempt to be sneaky with their branded content, its use can still be beneficial to all involved parties. Instead of trying to trick the viewer, outlets should focus their time more so on thinking of ways to intrigue the viewer with the branded content.

Blurring the Lines of Journalism and Advertising

Elijah Sweet
es008215@ohio.edu

Today, many media outlets are blurring the lines between journalism and advertising. Media partner with companies and then produce stories that promote a new product or service. This is an example of "native advertising."

The more media outlets produce these stories the more difficult it is for the public to tell the difference between journalism and advertising.  The relationship between Samsung and The New York Times is a good example of how native journalism is shaped today.

In the article by Media Shift that we read for class, Ava Sirrah explains that The Times creates video content using Samsung Virtual Reality and posts it on the Times' 360 Videos page. The New York Times and Samsung never came out publicly to tell people the 360 video campaign was a sponsorship or advertisement. The more news outlets create content promoting other companies, the more difficult it is going to be for people to know what is real journalism and what is advertising.

On Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a news satire show on HBO, Oliver explains how and why news outlets are feeding the public advertisements.He explains that many media outlets make the majority of their money from sponsored news content.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver


According to Native Advertising Institute, Buzzfeed relies heavily on native journalism for revenue. Buzzfeed posts many articles on its website that are sponsored by different companies. This is an issue because the more we see news outlets help promote companies,  the less the public knows what is real news and what is propaganda.

Photo by: SEMRush Blog

As long as people are not willing to pay for news content, native advertising in journalism will continue to grow because of how big of how much money news companies can make from it. But, can people actually tell the difference between sponsored content and independent journalism?

According to a study by IAB in 2014, 41% people are not aware when news content is being sponsored. That number should concern news outlets. Reporters should strive to be honest and transparent with its audience and not hide advertisements to make them look like actual new stories.

Native advertising in journalism has its place in news. It has certain benefits including bringing in revenue for both the media outlet and the company, and it also gives the public a chance to learn new information that might benefit them. But it should be evident to the reader when an article is being sponsored.

However, a journalist's goal should never be to deceive their audience. As native journalism continues to grow, reporter's need to find ways to make it apparent that they are promoting an advertisement.

Also, news outlets cannot and should not rely completely on native advertising for their news content. A journalist's duty is to try to be as independent as possible. Journalism should first and foremost be about telling the truth and not pushing propaganda.

Additionally, people should be made aware that native advertising does exist and they should always be checking to see if what they are reading, listening to, or watching is independent of promotions. It is important to make sure that the public can see through the blurred lines.

A New Age Means New Problems

Lukas Moore
lm169715@ohio.edu

   Ask someone 20 years ago about digital ad fraud and they would look at you with a blank stare. Same thing with how to regulate internet porn, or how to ensure users on Twitter are actual people. So many of the problems we face today with the internet are problems we couldn't even imagine in 1998. We are struggling with these problems too, with a lot of blog posts just like this ranting on how these problems need to be addressed and need to be fixed. News and talk shows rant on end about all the problems of the internet and its harmful repercussions, they rant on how the government needs to step up and fix these wide ranging and complex issues immediately. The thing is, we all just need to relax. These problems will work themselves out in due time, just like problems from other technological advancements worked itself out. The telephone and television both had issues in terms of distribution and regulation that were hard to figure out, but we pushed through it and now we have a system that works. This will be the same story for the internet and especially advertising on the internet. Although there are some major problems that I'll touch on in a second, they are fixable issues, they are issues that will be solved. So, no need to panic, no need to claim the world is in a worse place, we will be just fine.

Digital Ad Fraud

Advertisements online have faced many issues, including fraudulent advertisements. The most troubling quote I found from an article on the issue is from the CEO of a fraud detection firm who said that some digital ad fraud is so egregious that the only way it can be successful is because nobody cares. This is troubling to me because although patience is key on fixing these complex issues, we also have to care about these issues to fix them.
  Allowing false advertising or not fulfilling the promise of certain advertising promises is fraud. Us not caring about the fraud is a societal issue of not valuing the truth, or honesty. Which is so much more important than we admit.

Truth

We as a country, as a culture, as a collection of human beings must start valuing the truth. Our social media is filled with half-truths, we only showcase our brighter sides. We lie to ourselves constantly, we would rather a false statement support our opinion than a truthful statement go against it. This attitude towards the truth, which we see in digital ad fraud, is a poison in our society. If we just valued the truth a little more as individuals I feel that a lot of our problems would be fixed.

But even if we don't have a societal epiphany about the truth, this issue of digital ad fraud will work itself out. We will adjust, find new ways to regulate and keep these companies in line. We will figure it out, we always have.

Advertising Starts Young

Natalie Matesic
nm989014@ohio.edu

At what age do we draw the line with feeding our children content that will forever effect the way they think, buy, produce, and live their day-to-day lives? Where does this age start?

I'm sure we all remember being kids, watching Nickelodeon and seeing ads for everything from Hot Wheels to Barbie and Polly Pocket dolls, and so much more. We all remember our favorite commercials when we were kids such as the rolling can of Campbell's soup ad, or the Christmas time Hershey Kiss ads.

These advertisements forever changed and dictated the way our brains functioned and the way we consumed media and products. This idea of buy, buy, buy was ingrained in our minds since before we even knew what advertisements were.

Advertising doesn't affect MY child though, right?
How old were you when you saw your first beer commercial? I can't say exactly when my first time was, but I know it was way before I was actually legally allowed to drink it.

A health researcher at Claremont Graduate University did an experiment on students from 7th to 10th grades' exposure to alcohol advertisements.

This experiment showed that this sort of advertising being fed to our children increases the odds of underage drinking and results in higher levels of delinquency.

This proves that advertising does actually effect children in ways that we never expected.

The American Psychological Association (APA) states, "[a] variety of studies have found a substantial relationship between children's viewing of tobacco and alcohol ads and positive attitudes toward consumption of such products. Children find many such commercials attractive (e.g., Joe Camel, the Budweiser frogs) and consequently have high brand awareness of such products and positive attitudes toward them."

This creates problems for when children grow up and believe that these products are harmless. I mean, the TV told me they were harmless, so they have to be, right?

This can also be applied to violent advertisements. Children are easy targets. This sort of media can alter the way they see violence and can be very harmful for when they grow up.

Advertising is hard to get away from. It's everywhere you go, in everything you do...etc.

"It is estimated that advertisers spend more than $12 billion per year to reach the youth market and that children view more than 40,000 commercials each year. These figures represent dramatic increases over those from the 1970s."

That's over 100 commercials a day the youth of America is consuming. Not to mention ad placement in movies and TV shows, or online advertising, and so much more to constantly ensure that we are engaging in consumerism.

Courtesy of health.howstuffworks.com

But what can be done?
The APA states that a lot can be done, but the question is whether or not those measures will be taken.

These measures include advertising disclaimers, restricted advertising toward children, more work that psychologists can do to study the full effects of advertising on children, and so much more.

We know though that advertising means money, which means that unless a large reason is presented to end advertising toward adolescents, it will never stop.

Parents are advised to reduce screen time for children. It is also advised to watch the media that children are watching along with them so that you know exactly what they are consuming. This can lead to discussions with children about what advertisements are and avoid confusion in the future.

Is it Ever Ethical to Advertise to Children?

Katrina Kopronica
kk821516@ohio.edu

In a time when children are more exposed to technology more than ever, advertisements targeted at children are now more prominent more than ever. But that begs the question, is it ever really acceptable to advertise to children? 

The Facts:
As of 2015, 24.3 million children under the age of 11 were regular internet users. That being said, children under the age of 12 influence more than $500 billion in purchases. Bring the two statistics together and it's clear children make up a huge target market. This would make it seem that there shouldn't really be anything wrong with advertising to kids; I mean, they a major target group, and bring in billions of dollars in profit, right? Well, not so much.

Photo Courtesy of domain.me

The Problem:
According to Jennifer Harris, director of marketing initiatives at the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, the top four products marketed to children are fast food, sugared cereal, sugary drinks, and candy. Now, it's one thing when it's toys being advertised to kids, but when we live in a country that has such high childhood obesity rates, perhaps the fact that McDonald's spent $42 million on Happy Meal advertising in one year is a little disconcerting. A study conducted by Thomas Robinson, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford University and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital found that

"researchers looked at the effects of branding by giving 3- to 5-year-olds two portions of identical foods, one set out on a McDonald’s wrapper. The children were asked to point to which foods tasted better and, Dr. Robinson said, “overwhelmingly, for hamburgers, French fries, baby carrots, milk or juice in a cup, kids would say the one on the McDonald’s wrapper tastes better.”"

What This Means:
Dr. Robinson also found in another study done on preschoolers, just 30 seconds of exposure to a product they've never seen before changes their preferences for brand. Children are incredibly vulnerable. When adults see advertisements, they know to be skeptical. Kids on the other hand, they have a hard time distinguishing these things. Children are still learning how to separate whats fake from reality, their brains simply aren't developed enough to understand how advertising really works. And all this exposure from such a young age can have a negative impact on them. Even with middle and high school aged kids studies have found that constant exposure increases underage drinking rates and unhealthy behaviors associated with drinking. 

Is there a solution?
While advertising to kids just simply can't be eliminated entirely, many businesses have taken a step in the right direction.

"In January [2014], 18 companies, including Campbell's Soup, Dannon, General Mills, Kellogg's, Pepsi, and Kraft, adopted strict category-specific nutrition criteria for food that's advertised to children, making it easier for parents to compare products across brands. Though not every item advertised to children under 12 met the new standards, companies have vowed not to advertise those products to kids until changes are made, and have gone so far as to cut certain brands from their product lines."

Not to mention, McDonald's has made huge progress in their advertising as well. Happy Meal commercials now almost always advertise their apple slices, yogurt, and milk options as part of a balanced meal. 

All in all, advertising to children, especially under a certain age, just isn't ethical. How can you expect such a young child to process the information their receiving from advertising in a way that isn't at all negative? The good news is we're getting to a point of change, where people are coming out and saying "hey, this isn't right" and companies are taking note. Perhaps there is some hope for the future of advertising to children.

Digital Marketing and Truth

Michael Kromer
mk428915@ohio.edu

Talking about truth in advertising is a very tricky subject in the digital era. Truth can be related to the amount of people who are actually viewing media purchased by advertisement agencies, or truth can relate to what is being said in the advertisement itself. And even when an advertisement is honest and has truly landed on screens of real people there are still countless ethical issues that can occur.

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), "federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence," and this refers to all ads "whether it's on the internet, radio or television or anywhere else." So with this in mind, all digital advertisements should be truthful with no exception, and for the most part, this is the case. However, the digital advertising space's honesty comes into question in regards to impressions.

Impressions in this case means the amount of views an online advertisement receives from users. This is how an agency measures the success of an advertisement and how companies are directed to spend their money online. But impressions are not always real. In fact, impressions frequently are just bot, or in other words fake, accounts that will never result in any return on investment for the company that shelled out the money to buy the creative. This is what is known as data fraud, and this is a major issue in the digital marketing space that has not yet been solved.

So even though corporations are being held to an extremely high standard as monitored by the FTC, the websites that supply analytics to the ad agencies continue to lie and boost the amount of impressions per post, therefore earning them more money from advertisers. When it is broken down, this is basic theft of marketers' money, yet nothing has been done about it. And if digital marketing wants to continue to grow to the size of traditional advertising platforms, there will need to be some sort of regulation on accounts on Facebook and Google in order to ensure that not only the customers, but also the marketers, are being told the truth.

Courtesy of go-digital.net

Aside from the need for marketers to know the truth about how well their advertisements are doing in the online sphere, they should also know that consumers are simply getting fed up with ads. And while the customers have been getting annoyed with ads since ads existed, in the digital age, they now have to power to stop seeing ads altogether. In fact, both Android and Apple phones offer software to block advertisements so users no longer have to be bombarded with pop-ups and annoying videos. But what does this mean for the marketer? Online spending is becoming increasingly prevalent while simultaneously television and radio use is declining heavily, so the desire to advertise online grows everyday; but now users have the ability to shield themselves from paid messages.

As a result, marketers will now have to turn to organic growth online to gain a following an project their message. This means that advertising will move from paying per audience member, to working harder on the content itself to attract new customers. While this may seem appealing to consumers, this will be much more challenging to monitor and regulate. Since it is not technically an advertisement, but instead, a creative piece of content that is created by a company, does the FTC have the right to regulate it? As this new form of online content becomes more popular it will be interesting to see how truthful the content is, and how then, the FTC, and the public will react.

However, in any case, the ethical thing to do for any company, journalist, or online provider to do, is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth under all circumstances.