Trolling and Truth-Bending

Maureen O'Brien
mb163416@ohio.edu

Scrolling through your Facebook feed on any given morning, you can probably tell which stories would be categorized as "clickbait." According to Small Business Trends, clickbait is a piece of content that intentionally over-promises or misrepresents in order to pull users onto a particular website. So when your Aunt Helen shares a post that says something that you didn't think could ever be true, double checking the validity of the source is vital.

https://me.me/i/stop-stop-clickbait-shared-stop-clickbait-world-newss-post-click-21210130

In years past, upholding the credibility of papers and other media outlets was a responsibility that was shouldered by writers and editors. In 2018, fake and dramatized articles circulate like wild \fire, while real news stories are diminished by those who distrust the media.

So how does trolling and truth-bending affect the way people consume media? According to Forbes, 59 percent of readers will share articles without ever opening and reading it. Users sharing content solely based on headlines leads to the intensification of the echo chamber effect, the lack of actual information absorption and the ease of reader manipulation - when you don't read the stories you share, you're endorsing content that you haven't even taken the time to peruse.

Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter make the creation and dissemination of these mostly bogus articles easier than ever. Anyone can create content and share it in a way that makes it seem like it's coming from a credible source.

In October of 2018, Facebook removed over 800 accounts for spreading misinformation and spamming users timelines with inherently fake news stories. The removal of these fake accounts doesn't mean users should let their guards down, however. There are still "writers" out there continuously creating clickbait headlines that will be shared time and time again by your relatives and coworkers without a second thought. Some writers have abandoned their posts as vigilantes of truth, so it is now up to the readers to make sure what they're reading isn't fake news.

Storytelling with Technology

Katherine Vermes
kv266915@ohio.edu

The rise of technology in journalism has brought an unbelievable amount of changes to the form of storytelling, and many changes are still yet to come. From the immediacy of news coverage being released across the Internet, resulting in an ever-present 24-hour news cycle, to the streaming of events as they unfold, storytelling in the digital era is faster and more connected than ever. There are endless opportunities for reporters to interact with their audiences and vice versa, which opens the field up to be more inclusive and transparent. However, technology's effect on news must be carefully monitored to ensure that it does not become detrimental to journalism in the long run.

Clicks Don't Excuse Deception

"Truth" is the most important value in the field of journalism, and this includes using accurate, carefully written headlines. The first thing Internet-users see when a story is published should be representative and reflect what is really included in the article. However, according to the Columbia Journalism Review in 2014, "For awhile, the 'curiosity gap' was the headline style of choice, meant to entice readers into clicking by omitting a key piece of information." But while headlines need to be increasingly intriguing in order to stand out on websites that are constantly being updated with new stories to read, journalists cannot sacrifice the public's trust in the media just for clicks and going viral.

Evoking a reaction out of the audience should not be the main goal of a headline. Instead, we should aim to evoke interest and thought, so that audiences feel the need to read the rest of the story. Headlines that people only share to excite, enrage or upset others on social media are not accomplishing the goal of journalistic storytelling, they are not upholding the value of "truth."

Streaming the News

Live-streaming is a relatively older aspect of social media, but it has grown into a larger portion of news coverage in the last few years. Media organizations will send reporters to events to stream the entirety of protests, rallies and countless other kinds of public gatherings to show audiences what is happening in real-time, giving people access to live stories right from their phones, without need of a television or even computer.

But live-streaming also opens news coverage to citizen journalism, as people can show what is happening around them before a story is even newsworthy, before reporters can even be sent to the scene. As the Washington Post states in this 2016 article, "Live-streaming technology, its advocates argue, has given incredible power to victims of systemic violence, both online and offline." An example of this is when the fiancee of Philando Castile live-streamed following the shooting of him by police during a traffic stop. Another instance of this was when students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School posted their own photos and videos to social media during a school shooting in February. While this is not necessarily live-streaming, their posts told the story of what happened inside their school on that day as it was happening, helping to build support nationwide for their March for Our Lives movement.

Photo courtesy of Pew Research Center

Social Storytelling

The March For Our Lives movement coverage began and grew largely because of social media. According to CNBC, "Stoneman Douglas student survivors have primarily used social media to rally the public around hashtags such as #NeverAgain, #March4OurLives and #DouglasStrong." And hashtags like these, along with numerous others related to the social movements that are largely being started online, can help audiences find the news coverage more easily and immediately, therefore creating a quick connection between journalism and the public.

Is Clickbait Ruining Content?

Murphy Patterson
mp385915@ohio.edu

We want the best stories and we want them now.  If a news headline or article title fits into someones views or stands by their opinion, that article may be shared on social media or sent around. Videos, news stories, and articles all show up online with attention grabbing titles and links to click. But has trying to get people's attention ruined the quality of the actual story itself? With online newspapers and magazines becoming more popular, organizations are trying to get the most clicks on their stories and links so they can make more money. Clickbait refers to internet content that's main purpose is to grab the attention of readers so they click on the link. With clickbait rising, has the value of news diminished? 

There are many issues when it comes to talking about clickbait, but the biggest one would be content quality. Think of a feature article, with an attention grabbing title that gets people really interested in the story so they click on it. It doesn't really matter how good the story is, if the title is good enough, it's going to get clicks. So this becomes an issue when organizations realize that maybe the quality of the story isn't as important. With a great title or headline, the story will remain in the spotlight and continue getting clicks.

                                                              Retrieved From: The Insight

Different types of online media use clickbait, but the worst place for this to take place is in the news. As journalists, it is our responsibility to give the public the information they have they right to know. We need to stay honest during our reporting and remain transparent when we are writing. If people are only focusing on what the headline is going to be or what they best way is to get the most clicks, then the story quality can decline and facts may be left out. When taking journalism into consideration, our first thought should always be about the public and the readers. When advertising and money takes over, the content deteriorates.

We need the stories we write and the content we put out to backup the title or headline it was given. Journalist should always strive to write the best story and put out the best content they can, and hopefully the headline will be strong enough to grab attention of the readers. Many forms of media have a great title that is clickbait, and then the content may barely have something to do with the main point or leave a big chunk of important information out. Many videos on social media platforms will have exaggerated titles and then the actual content is nothing like the title. For news articles with titles that don't support the story, journalistic credibility declines. We want to remain credible so people will actually read our stories and not just click on them. Clickbait is okay to a sense, as long as the journalist or creator can back it up in their story or content.

High Tech News and Info

Tee Willis
tw532416@ohio.edu

Journalism is an industry that will never stay the same. It's not the same as it was thirty years ago or even ten years ago. As modern technology develops and advances, the profession continues to adjust along with it.

After the revolutionary invention of the printing press, the news was distributed through papers and continued to be the leading source of information for decades. Other inventions such as the radio and later the television caused a shift in the news industry and opened up doors for all new kinds of job positions. The biggest culture shock to the journalism business, however, came with the inventions of the internet and the cell phone.

People are now consuming vast amounts of news and information from an almost unlimited amount of sources at the touch of a button. This has caused a major shift and a bigger push for digital journalism. The increase of social media has also significantly influenced the journalism field as well.

                                                   Photo courtesy of The City Journal
What's Next?
So, what's next? This is the question that news organizations are constantly asking themselves. Owners and editors want to know how can they advance, and what trends are occurring in media coverage. Innovation is everything in this industry, and companies are certainly finding more creative ways to cover news.

VR Journalism
Recently, some journalists have made creative strides by doing virtual reality journalism. The goal of this, experts say, is to "transport viewers to a place where they would otherwise never be able to access, and allow them to build empathy by letting them become immersed in the story." Essentially, the goal is to almost literally put the viewer or reader inside the story. These stories typically contain audio and video bytes taken from interviews and information gathered by reporters, journalists and editors.

Drones in Photojournalism
Right along with VR comes a new emergence of drones in both photo and video journalism. This innovation has allowed photographers and videographers to go to reach new heights and obtain images that they've never been able to before. This is just another example of how technology is continuing to advance the journalism business.

How Far or How Much
While it's great to have these new innovations and creative ways to present stories, there are always dilemmas, especially ethical ones that must be evaluated. For each new piece of new technology, there must be new rules put in place to protect both the public and the media. For VR journalism, the big criticism is that people are worried that stories will be tampered or tweaked in order for the technological experience to be enhanced. Companies have assured, however, that editors and journalists will continue to report in a fashion that stays transparent. For drone photography, it's believed that people will be exploited or privacy will be invaded without consent or want. Professionals that participate in its use debate that point by using basic rules and guidelines that all photojournalists use. They treat it with the same rules as any photographer would.

In an industry that is constantly evolving, it's important to understand that we'll have to continue to keep ourselves in check ethically. As the new innovations come, we constantly have to ask ourselves how we'll adapt and how it will affect us ethically to adapt with it.

The Click of a Button

Ethan Sands
es700016@ohio.edu

There are so many things on the World Wide Web, nowadays. Whether it be advertisements, news articles, videos, sports pages, etc. There's one thing that keeps these different sources of information together, a click.

Clicks

A click is when someone voluntarily chooses to view something on their device. Most of the time there is clickbait that provides the viewer a reason for them to look further. People are now getting paid for the number of clicks that they can get. The Washington Post gives an example of two workers who went from creating alt-right Facebook pages to then, "in 2015 Wade and Goldman started doing stories and getting paid based on how many clicks they got."

This proves the point that there is money to be made everywhere in the journalism industry, even as something as simple as a click of a button. Because there is money to be made, there are always people who will attempt to abuse the privilege. These people are trollers. Social media has been a huge component for online content, engagements or activity with posts is what the Columbia Journalism Review is saying is the up and coming buzzword. The engagements are based on the headlines that viewers see, and the headlines don't have to necessarily be eye-opening. Some headlines are purposefully aggravating so that viewers will want to hear the stupidity or ideas behind the headline. This is because the number of clicks doesn't matter how long the viewer is on the page. Let this not mislead future viewers, there are still true journalists who care about the content of their pieces.

Video

Everybody knows about the implementation of body cameras for cops to potentially lower the amount of deaths by police officers. This has been useful, but the instances where the body cameras have been turned off or broken have become prominent. There has been a new influential way that people are saving lives, sometimes not even their own. Video and Live streams. By recording the interactions and encounters with law enforcements, there has been disengages and an increase of proof against cops that would have previously been let off with no charges or a warning for their actions without these videos.

The Washington Post were able to talk to the fiancé of Philando Castile who was killed in a routine traffic stop in 2016. She live streamed the altercation and was able to go viral with her video, so that she could show the world the truth of encounters for African Americans with the police. The Washington Post stated that, "Live-streaming technology, its advocates argue has given incredible power to victims of systematic violence, both online and offline." The accessibility of these videos is also linked to a click of a button because you have to choose to watch the live stream or watch the video after the event had occurred. There is more just police brutality covered on live streams, but this has been a huge asset to those caught in these situations.

The World is at our fingertips. We cannot be led astray by the information that could be falsified or attempts to get a reaction out of us. Yet, there is undeniable visual evidence that can help spread the word of reality and truth among this world of frauds.

The Good and Bad Uses of Trolling in Media

Jake Wernick
jw912314@ohio.edu

While reading the article, "Stop Trolling your Readers" by Kira Goldenberg, it made me think about the interesting topic that is trolling. This particular article focuses on media outlets using phony headlines in order to attract clicks and shares from the public. While I certainly disagree with the use of completely fake headlines being used to trick people into clicking, I do think that trolling still has a place in headlines and in journalism. I also believe it is important to keep trolling away from sensitive and very important subject matter, but as far as entertainment, lifestyle, and multiple other subjects go, I believe that trolling is oftentimes very entertaining when used correctly. For example, one "troll" of a headline that I remember reading on social media recently was "Aw! This Aspiring Songwriter Keeps Making Music Even Though SZA Exists." The trolling continues beyond the headline and into the entire story, continuing the idea that SZA's album Ctrl is "the peak of music as an art form and everyone else should just go home." While at first, it certainly seems as though the article's author, Grace Perry is trashing this aspiring artist, she most likely does not actually feel this way about her. In fact, it may be possible that Perry's intentions were to shine light on Ashley Pezzulli, the 23 year-old singer and songwriter.

Photo via: Reductress

Most likely, prior to reading Perry's article, the reader is unfamiliar with Pezzulli, and perhaps will decide to look her and her music up, thus increasing her popularity. Perry uses the humorous headline and the popularity of an artist like SZA to draw readers into her article and perhaps even share it as well. While I personally do not know whether or not these were Perry's intentions in writing this article, I do support the use of trolling in this instance regardless. If these were her intentions, then she wisely used trolling as a way to help an up-and-coming artist gain some popularity. If these were not her intentions, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and at the very least, Perry was able to provide humor to many readers, including myself.

While I fully support the use of trolling in situations such as Perry's article, there are definitely certain instances that I would say it is completely unacceptable, especially in headlines. I would argue that headlines that could create panic, headlines that could offend someone or a group of people, and headlines that are just completely misleading are inappropriate in journalism. One example that comes to mind is an article by Paula Bolyard titled, "Malia Obama Caught on Video Twerking and Flashing the Crowd at Lollapalooza." Despite the headline, when viewing the video, "twerking" really is just dancing and "flashing the crowd' is her rolling up her shirt a bit, exposing her shorts. The article continues to attempt to hurt Malia Obama's reputation by mentioning information about previous issues with drug use and underage alcohol consumption at the festival, despite having no evidence that Malia partook in any of this.

Movements and the Media

Cassidy Selep
cs743115@ohio.edu

It seems as if since I was a child, technology has been evolving. Because of the evolution of technology, it is only natural for the media to evolve along with it. A major development in technology that has transformed the media is live-streaming videos.

The article written by Washington Post's Caitlin Dewey and Abby Ohlheiser emphasizes the examples of live-stream videos in the recent past. A few of the examples were from organizers for the Black Lives Matter Movement.

The Black Lives Matter Movement began in 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. The movement began to gain more recognition in 2014 after the murder of Mike Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. This was due to the use of videos and live-stream videos to get the word out about the protests happening.

Photo courtesy of Black Lives Matter

The Washington Post article mentions Michael Kevin Bautista that live-streamed a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas, Texas using Facebook. Live-stream videos and social media have had the greatest impact on the media and on organizations like Black Lives Matter. With these advances in technology, the media has greater access to sources as well as the truth. For organizations like Black Lives Matter, these advances can get the word out quickly and nationally. It is easier now than ever to start a conversation with the entire nation.

Because of the advances in technology and the greater ease for the everyday citizen to contribute to the media, organizations have also adapted to the current climate. For example, the organization Channel Black has emerged. Its goal is to train people to intervene with the media in order to understand Blackness in America.

Channel Black wants to diversify "the faces of people identified as experts and featured on television, radio and in print media discussing and intervening on important and polarizing issues that impact marginalized communities."

The organization wants to teach people how to not only use technology like live-steaming videos, but also how to have a conversation with the media. They understand that they must work with the media to achieve its goals rather than working as two separate entities.

There has been, of course, some backlash on the use of live-stream videos. The Washington Post article mentions that on the Black Lives Matter Facebook page for Minneapolis, some had commented that posting videos showing violence can cause post-traumatic stress disorder or be disrespectful to the family of those affected.

I believe that with organizations like Channel Black, the issues with live-stream videos can be resolved with public education.

Too Quick to Judge

Elijah Sweet
es008215@ohio.edu

In today's age of social media, we are ingesting information quicker than ever before. We can scroll through our social media platforms and view words, pictures and videos as they are instantly uploaded by people from all over the world.

The faster we are able to see this information, the faster people are able to form an opinion of what they see on social media. They can easily make a snap judgement on a person, photo and/or video.

***For the sake of privacy, I am changing the names of the people in this story.

In November, Jasmine, a college student, tweeted a video of Gabby, another college student, at a restaurant Jasmine was at after she overheard comments from Gabby, who was sitting at the table next to them, that she thought were offensive to her.

Gabby is half Japanese and she was sitting with her father who is black and married to Gabby's mom, who is Japanese. Gabby was outraged by jokes she heard Jasmine making so she decided to record Jasmine at the restaurant. Gabby tweeted multiple videos of the incident and tweeted an entire thread about how Jasmine was showing "blatant racism".

Gabby's social media flooded with comments from people all over twitter. Gabby's tweet got over 2000 retweets and over 4000 likes. Gabby also sent the video to the professors in Jasmine's school.

Jasmine received threats from people all over social media. She deleted all of her social media accounts and left Ohio University for a few days.

Jasmine obviously should not have made jokes that would be offensive to to another culture. There are stereotypes in all cultures and it is important that people reframe from using them because they are offensive to to those people.

But it is also important to remember how quickly social media can destroy a persons image. People are immediately judging  posts they are seeing and forming opinions without questioning the whole story.

People all over Twitter do not even know Jasmine but they are quickly forming ugly opinions about her because of a social media post.

Social media is a great place for people to advocate for social action, but it is important to find the line between advocating for social change and just trying to ruin a girls life.

I am not saying that it was wrong for Gabby to call out Jasmine's actions at the restaurant on social media, but no one should intentionally go out of their way to attack someone.

As journalists, we need to remember when we are using live-streams, drones and virtual reality that audiences are viewing these video almost immediately.  We must remember that as journalists we are the gate keepers to information and we decide what the public sees.

Institute of Women and Ethnic Studies explains why it is important to "pause before you post". Journalists must wait to get the full account of story before they post it all over social media.

Pausing before you post helps journalists to make a good ethical decision when deciding if the public should know certain information. Journalists should not be the only people pausing before they post.

Photo from: Pintrest

According to The Wellesly News, everyone can act as a journalist today. With Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and other social sites everybody is able to post information for people to see all over the world.

People must remember when posting these messages, pictures and/or videos that everybody has access to them and that everyone will be swiftly to form an opinion. The public must also remember that many of these social media posts are one-sided and may not show the full story of a certain event. The quicker people post, the quicker people will judge.


  

Nonpartisanship in Media

Many say the era of nonpartisan journalism is over. We don't need it. It's old fashioned. But why?

CNN and Fox News are the two most partisan news outlets on the big screen nowadays, and it seems mostly like the broadcasters just talk to get more airtime and see themselves on the screen. When they have panels, it's a screaming match where nothing productive can possibly get done.

So why are there people saying there's no need for the nonpartisanship that is taught to young journalists at universities?

I think what I'm trying to say is there seems to be a difference in partisan journalism and this new era of yelling-at-who-you-don't-agree-with-journalism. It is our media's responsibility to be the watchdog of the government, but it is not the media's job to entertain us with bickering and discrediting other journalists.

Throughout history, news media have criticized political leaders: in 1828, Andrew Jackson was attacked for marrying a woman whose divorce was not yet finalized, newspapers that were pro-Jackson accused the critics of violating the general's privacy and vouched for his innocence.

A historian is quoted saying, "The truth was not suppressed. It was simply hard to get in any one place."

How are citizens supposed to read the news media and trust what they're reading if everything is biased toward one side? Isn't it our job to report what people do and let the readers make their decision over whether it is bad or not?

Journalism with a biased tilt to it is the tell of a journalist who wants to be in charge. No-one writing for the local newspaper has a voice big enough to make huge change, but it seems journalists are so hot and heavy nowadays to make people think the way they do that the care for good journalism has left the building.

Photo provided by The Duran

I'm not saying it's not important to call out our political leaders when they are acting a fool, but what we've created now, with the help of Donald Trump, is an endless cycle of criticize, defend, repeat. Every time any news organization investigates, writes a story or simply publishes something the president tweeted onto their website, there is an attack from the president claiming: "FAKE NEWS!"

Donald Trump is taking our voices away by discrediting us to his followers. I know many people who  now believe that The New York Times and The Washington Post are phony places to get your news. Because the president doesn't like what the institutions publish.

With the rise of nonpartisan journalism, every issue has turned into a right-wing or left-wing issue. There are no human-interest ideas anymore - it's either someone writing a story with an agenda to help the liberals or someone writing a story with an agenda to help the conservatives. Why can't we all agree on simple things that are bad or good? People really have started going out of their way to defend something so out-of-whack in the name of political party.

In the 19th century, political parties were the main source of news because many of the newspapers were produced and distributed by institutions that weren't in it for money, so the partisanship was a little more prominent. Now that we have the resources and money to leave the government out of our newspapers, we should do just that.

News in the Modern Age

Author: Natalie Matesic
nm989014@ohio.edu

Are Changes in Technology Beneficial or Harmful?
As technology and society evolve, there become changes in the ways we consume media, news, and information.  These changes, while necessary to the evolution of humanity, are both beneficial and harmful. These changes provide us with information that we would not have been able to access years ago but also display some disadvantages such as desensitization and overly graphic content. Here are some of the pros and cons to our everchanging technological society.

The Good in the Change
With the invention and evolution of drones, mobile smartphones, tablets, TVs, virtual reality, etc. we see that society is more active in what is going on around the world. We can connect ourselves with any part of the world by learning about their struggles and joining in on their causes within seconds. This accessibility in information has made us see how small the world is after all. Technology has the power to connect people from all backgrounds, all distances, and all beliefs. Technology has the power to build communities and spread news at a much faster rate than years past. This spread of news and information can really benefit those in need of help.

Live-streaming "has given incredible power to victims of systemic violence, both online and offline," meaning that it has given the people the ability to share anything they want without media interference.

Jesse Hertzberg, chief executive of Livestream, a popular service among activists and protesters, said, “You used to find out about something like a protest or police shooting after the fact. Now you have this ability to transport yourself to where it’s actually happening — it’s a real visceral, emotional connection.” This gives people more freedom and more access to information.

Courtesy of The Washington Post

The Bad in the Change
We are a culture "famished for entertainment." We will go extreme lengths for entertainment. We want to film every aspect of our lives to relive them later on. Our privacy is invaded, fake news is spread constantly, and so much information is thrown at us that we are desensitized and overwhelmed. The use of live-streaming has granted us the ability to see graphic content whenever we want, arguably desensitizing us to a point where the violence going on in the world is constantly shoved in our faces, becoming a recurring topic we view, often desensitizing viewers.

With people posting videos of people's deaths, we forget how disrespectful this can be to the families of the victims. We tend to forget about others' feelings. Our phones and the technology around us can affect the way we communicate with others and cause us to lose sense of ourselves.

Is it Ethical to Call Out the President on Lying?

Katrina Kopronica
kk821516@ohio.edu

"All politicians bend the truth to some extent, though such communications typically earn passive descriptors such as "untruths," "falsehoods," or the like. The argument is that it's impossible for journalists [to] get inside a subject's head to gauge intent. With Trump, for example, it's difficult to say whether he is actively deceptive or just so shamelessly unprepared that it gives off the tangerine-colored aura of deception.

Photo courtesy of musicismystory.wordpress.com

For years protocol in journalism has been to steer clear of the word "lie" when covering the Commander-in-chief. The current political climate, however, is changing this age-old rule.

Many news outlets have taken to covering President Trump with all regard to following the rule out the window. Vox described one of Trump's stints as "blatant lying." The New York Times posted a story about Trump's "trillion-dollar lie." The editor even put out a statement saying that they "decided to be more direct in calling things out when a candidate actually lies...it is a real word and we will use it as warranted." So in a time when the movement is shifting away from being politically correct in terminology, what is ethical?

"Newsrooms have wrestled with how to characterize the misinformation Donald Trump spreads since the presidential campaign, when his eyebrow-raising statements tended more toward "pants on fire" than true, according to at least one fact-checking site. This challenge is only intensifying with Trump in the Oval Office, and backed by an administration eager to provide "alternative facts" when the actual facts don't flatter the president."

  Of course there are plenty of valid reasons to avoid using the word lie. Lying implies that someone intentionally fabricated something, they had intent to deceive. As journalists we know you never presume someone to be guilty of something. But where does that cross the line with our current president? You have outlets like NPR that still avoid using the term lie, and then you have The Times who have posted multiple stories about Trumps lies, using the word straight up.

At some point it is fair to say something is a lie. The Washington Post wrote that 'when the president states falsehoods that have been contradicted numerous times by well-distributed reporting - sometimes directly to him in interviews and the like - it's fair to reach the conclusion he lied."

The political climate has had a huge effect on the media as is, both negative and positive. And in a time when so much is changing it's fair to assume that rules on how to cover "lies" could be tweaked as well. When covering someone especially as eccentric as Trump, it is fair to call him out on lying when, as stated by The Washington Post, what he said was contradicted several times by reliable sources. We have reached a point where people seek the truth more than ever, and if the truth is that the President is, with all intent, lying, the people have the right to know and as journalists it is our duty to report that. Of course, you must always be careful doing so, Don't claim something is a lie until you have enough proof it was with intent to deceive. But when you do have the proof, it is absolutely ethical to inform the pubic on what they have the right to know.

What Happened to Truth?

Kaitlyn Lyons
kl310115@ohio.edu

In today's society, it is hard to tell what is true and what is not.  Several news sources either stretch out the truth or put out completely false information.  Many citizens are unsure who and what to believe because fake news is such a casual thing now.  Telling the truth is such a simple task, yet people have such a hard time telling the story how it is.  People try to stay away from the word lie because of the stigma it has behind it.  However, that is essentially the same thing as being untruthful.

It is important for journalists to stay neutral to subjects and not to make things one sided, especially when you are unsure of what the readers backgrounds are.  It could become challenging for journalists' beliefs not to affect their stories and articles.  They need to follow their ethical values for themselves as well as the public by just giving out truthful information sea nothing else.  Ever since President Trump got elected to be in office, the media has been reporting false information and stories.  People have been more cautious about what they are reading and believing.

President Trump is not helping the situation either.  It is proven on many sources that he has spread around false information and rumors.  It does not help the situation when people see the leader of our county giving the public information that is not true.  When journalists see someone that high up with all that power giving false claims, it makes them think it is not as bad to lie.

Courtesy of Valley News

Most politicians either leave parts out of stories, or twist the truth in some way shape or form.  This does not just show up with Trump.  There have been lots of past presidents that have been accused for lying and giving false statements and claims.  President Clinton and President Nixon show this in their past trial.

People need to think about what they say and how it can affect them before they say it.  Especially someone who is in the media everyday and is such a powerful person that represents the country.  It is hard to take our country and politicians seriously at times because of how casual fake news is becoming.

It is hard to be perfect in the world of journalism.  No matter what one says or does, there is bound to be at least one person to either disagree or give backlash to the situation.  It is hard to please the public with this generation of people that is on social media and reading the news.  Hate speeches are also common and they attack certain social groups and put them down for things such as race, sexual orientation, religion, and many other categories.

Things like fake news, untruthful information, and hate speeches need to come to an end in order for the people, country, and society as a whole to go back to being truthful.

It Comes Down to Integrity

Bailey Kormick
bk399015@ohio.edu

The Basics

As a worker, or even more generally as a person, the actions you do and the decisions you make are a reflection of yourself and what you represent. As journalist, at any stage in this world's history we have been presented with an audience. An audience whose eyes are always on us and whose ears are always listening. We have a voice that not all people have. Our voice is our gift, but it is earned and maintained with respect and integrity.

Photo provided by https://imgur.com/gallery/WkHHpZ1

Integrity is a value that can not be forgotten or disregarded. According to the organization Media Helping Media, "Without integrity your journalism is untrustworthy and suspect. Integrity gives a journalist the authority to investigate issues, shine a light in dark places and to dig where others don't.  It is essential for informing the public debate with trustworthy, rigorous journalism" (mediahelpingmedia.org).  This statement is the truth. Just like a journalist's voice, trust is also earned. However, trust can be so easily lost with the smallest evidence of negligence. The solution to maintaining and unwavering trust: integrity.

The Hard Truth 

For the last several years the public has been discussing the so-called death of journalism and print news. Those who are not well versed in the industry claim that imminent destruction is near for print publications. Due to the increase in technology and due to the continuously failing trust of media and news creators.

For the most part, the public is wrong. Print is not dying, print is innovating and growing. According the The Washington Post, "Newsgathering isn't dying; instead, it's becoming stratified, with real implications for our knowledge of the world" (washingtonpost.com). This perspective on journalism is also evident in the John Oliver video below.

However, the public is not entirely wrong with the decrease in media trust. It is true, the public is not as trustworthy of news publishers as they once were. As journalists, we can blame Donald Trump, the government, or anyone else that seems remotely blameworthy.



Provided by YouTube. Originally published by Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

The truth? Journalists are the ones to blame. We have lost site of who we are and what we stand for. We are a part of an industry that has to power to change and save the world. We challenge the public, we inform them, we motivate them. We are have the power to inspire and the power to tell the truth. We have forgotten what we stand for in these times of deceit and blame and brutal attacks.

The journalists of today's society are under a microscope as we always should be. It is our job to hold people accountable and it is the public's job to hold us accountable. We must take responsibly for our reporting. Mistakes will be made but it is how we correct those mistakes that matters.

Trust in the media can be regained. I believe it will be regained, as journalists put their integrity above all other values and push themselves to be truthful and honorable reporters.

How the Modern Times Effect Journalism

Michael Kromer
mk428915@ohio.edu

The world is changing at a rapid rate, that only grows more rapid every single day due to widespread globalization thanks, in part, to social media. And in the United States, social media is now even having a major effect on politics. President Trump frequently bombards social media, especially Twitter, with rants about various topics. One of major concern is his slamming journalists day in and day out. Because of Trump's war on free speech, and because of social media on a whole, journalism has begun to change. No longer is journalism the black and white, straightforward, systematic machine that it once was. Journalism today has begun to allow for some subjectivity and opinion--even in the hardest of news.

Courtesy of https://www.thestranger.com/

A lot of the subjectivity that can be found from some of the largest news outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, is to simply defend journalism itself. When the President of the United States is the biggest attacker of journalism and free speech, it is only at the cost of objective, facts-only reporting that a strong defense of freedom of speech can be made. And the big news media companies would rather keep their industry afloat, than maintain purity-- and understandably so. However, other, more right leaning news outlets have the President on their side, yet they still fail to remain objective. An argument can definitely be made that the more conservative news are just trying to fight back at the left, who is becoming less subjective, but looking at a Pew Research Study conducted last year, it is clear that the right-leaning news cite 2+ sources significantly less than the left. In fact, most of the news stations studied that had a more right winged audience mostly used 1 source type or none at all. So what replaces all of the airtime that facts and sources used to hold? Opinions, opinions, opinions. In fact, only 45% of Fox News broadcasting was labelled as 'factual reporting,' leaving 55% for opinion and commentary. But the left leaning broadcasters are not innocent. MSNBC was far worse with 85% opinion and only 15% factual content, according to a Business Insider story. The reason for the surge in commentary and the decline of actual news broadcasting is a combination of "the 24 hour news cycle, the need to limit costs, and the need to arouse emotion to keep audiences locked in," Matthew Nisbet said in his article on the Big Think. Advertising is how TV stations make their money after all, so it is important to hold an audience. But doing so at the expense of the truth is hard for any real journalist to see.

While commentary and opinion is continuing to increase on media outlets, there are still some holdouts. Politico, for example, will not even hire someone if their social media accounts show a partisan slant. "We are deliberately nonpartisan in the kind of journalism that we pursue," Sudeep Reddy, a managing editor at Politico said. And this is very good news for journalism and journalists worldwide. Because at the end of the day, all a reporter has are his word, so in the modern era more than ever, it is imperative for journalists to maintain their ethical standards and report the truth and only the truth to the best of their ability.

Objectivity in a Digital World

Brigitte Meisse
bm179214@ohio.edu

For years, objectivity has been a viewed as a fundamental pillar of quality journalism. In fact, pieces are often judged as "good journalism" based on their ability to share both sides of a story without imposing opinions onto the audience.

With the state of today's society, media is viewed as polarizing. The president attacks the news media and questions their credibility, making it increasingly difficult for journalists to maintain their objectivity.

While all of this happens in the world of news and information, constant advances are being made in the world of digital media. Between social media platforms and mobile devices, we are all constantly connected. Researchers found that we are now connected to everyone in the world through six degrees of separation.

Picture via https://yourstory.com/2016/08/tools-social-media-content/

As we are all constantly connected, the question arises on whether or not journalists should remain objective and unbiased on their personal social media platforms when employed by new networks. Do journalists have the right to express their opinions on social media or does that impede on their ability to be seen as objective?

In theory, writing for an organization could be seen as separate from your personal life, but now both your work and personal life are all connected within the click of a button. The boundaries blend together.

For example, Politico disqualifies potential new hires based on Twitter feeds. This isn't a new practice. It's been proven that employers scan social media feeds during the hiring process, but this practice in journalism might take on a whole new meaning. Now hiring newsroom managers can assess the perceived objectivity of applicants.

Is this a fair practice? Are we, as journalists, limiting the free speech of our colleagues?

Among all this confusion, one thing is for sure. It's time to rethink what it really means to be objective and where we draw those boundaries. Ethics, like all practices, must adapt with changing times including the current political climate and the rise of digital platforms.

The Stories of the Future

by: Anna Wise
aw138915@ohio.edu

There is no doubt that technology is rapidly changing the way we find and consume our news as well as blurring what may or may not be real within news stories. Some would say it's almost terrifying, which I understand, but I also think it's fascinating.

The Bad

There are many complications with things such as drones, virtual reality, etc. Fake news and filter bubbles are affecting the minds of the entire world and allowing things such as hate and bigotry to spread with the click of a mouse. Privacy and truth come into question as we watch drones fly over our heads and writers draft headlines specifically meant to infuriate and enrage readers (who most likely won't read the article, but won't hesitate to hit the "share" button).

With the media under more of an attack than ever before, these downfalls in modern media and the technology of journalism are no doubt consequential for those actively trying to remain credible and be informative to the public. There is frustration around whether or not this technology is actually benefiting the public, and what should be done to keep it monitored and transparent.

The Good

Although there are many downfalls and complications with all the new technology arising in our field, there is so much opportunity to build a new kind of journalism. With virtual reality and live video, we can be transported to places we would never have set foot in before. We can begin to become more immersed in a news story and build empathy with those involved, as The Washington Post discusses. This applies to the development of drone technology as well, as we are able to see and understand situations in a completely different way than traditional photography.

Source: greenbuzzagency.com

I think this is what I am most excited about when thinking about where this technology has the potential to take us. Although it seems like there is so much division among people right now, I believe that it can connect us more deeply as humans and make us more conscience of what is happening than if we were to be reading in plain old black and white.

The Balance

I think what it all comes down to is the capital T Truth. This new tech offers the ability to manipulate, deceive and purposely confuse readers and viewers. Journalists must remember their Codes of Ethics and consider what their true duty is to the public. Where the problem seems to stem from is the fact that now the public has the ability to become the journalist, and may not be considering ethical decisions or the way their posts and content may be perceived by others. In a way, almost everyone who ever shares anything online or through these new mediums has a responsibility to know what they are posting and the possible consequences that could follow.

So the dilemma truly is - how do we as a society want to tell the stories of the future? Will we allow it to thwart our values and our ethics and further our division as people? Or will we find a way to use it all for good and elevate our journalistic techniques to new heights? Again, it is a question of truth. Our decision lies in which truth we choose to tell.

Facts and Objectivity

Emma Kennedy

ek001915@ohio.edu

There is difference between objectivity and reporting about news that is completely wrong in nature. This is what people do not understand when they talk to journalists about objectivity. When a shooting happens, no one accuses a journalist of not being objective when they say the event was tragic and portrays the shooter as a villain.

When something truly wrong happens, or truly good, there is no need to be objective. Not every story has two sides worth telling. Yes, there are technically always two sides but just because there was shooting we as journalists do not report from the side of the shooter, we report the tragedy.

There are people who sympathized with Hitler but journalists did not publish articles saying he was an alright guy, they published articles that he was a murderer and dictator. This is because when something is blatantly good or bad there is no need to find the middle ground. Imagine a tornado ripping through Kansas and having a newspaper or news channel post that it was not a complete tragedy. Some news is black and white and does not require any grey.

Non-objective reporting is when a story has two sides but only one is reported. When a news organization is obviously choosing one side of a story and making a statement about something. This is when reporting becomes political, when the news isn’t blatantly good or bad and the news picks a side on their own.

We see this a lot in politics because news organizations tend to lean one way or another and have a bias. This is done with framing and word choice; some organizations are more severe with their bias.

When an article is posted about Trump and it is opinion, such as the CNN article about him having a golf problem, that is an objectivity problem. However when an article is posted about one of his proposed legislations failing and it actually did then that is not a problem with objectivity. 

When the president fails it is not biased to publish that he failed, a failure is a failure there is no middle ground. When Trump does something wrong in the eyes of the majority then it is not biased to call him out. 

We need to stop being so afraid of bias, taking a side is not always a bad bias. There is not always a need to be completely objective at all time. The world is mostly grey but there is some black and white news. There is news that requires a side to be chosen. 

There will always be someone that will disagree with an article no matter how objective it is. There are people who believe the world is flat so therefore facts clearly do not matter to everyone. If something bad happened report that it was bad. If something good happened report that it was good. Objectivity is a good thing but we also need to publish facts full-heartedly not half-heartedly.