The Media and the Military

Max Meyerson
mm603815@ohio.edu

One of the key aspects of being in the press is being able to cover our country's biggest issues no matter how difficult. One of the biggest issues that a journalist might have to cover is the military. The military itself poses so many ethical issues when it comes to reporting and it is no surprise it has been the fall of many reporters of the years. The most recent and most notable example of this was the Brian Williams scandal. What this scandal can show us is how important it is to be transparent in your work, especially when covering such a delicate story.

Employers should let it be known that covering the military should be the most respected job in journalism and it should be taken very seriously. There can not be people who make as big of blunders as Brian Williams. Situations like this give real reporters covering the military a bad name and it jeopardizes the credibility of the media reporting on the military. The relationship between the military isn't just an important one, it is a necessary one. If the relationship between the media and the military is fractured, we could lose vital information about our actions over seas. The citizens of America have the right to understand the issues that are going on in the middle east or any other war ridden areas of the world. These issues need to be handled by the best reporters in the world and it is up to the media companies to put the right people in the position and not make a mistake like Brian Williams.

One of the other biggest issues in covering the military is understanding what information should be released to the public and what information is best kept under wraps. In class we were screened a video of a horrific shooting in the middle east and a reporter and camera crew on scene witnessing the entire atrocity. We were asked whether or not that video should have been released and I had to ponder that question in my mind for a really long time. On one hand it is a disturbing video that casts are poor view of the United States military and all of its veterans and members. On the other hand we deserve to know exactly what our military operations are doing over seas so we can properly judge our elected officials for the next upcoming elections. The overall damage that it could do does not outweigh the importance of having full transparency with the public and not keeping them in the dark on those scary situations. That takes a great amount of understanding of what it means to make an ethical decision because I am still unsure if one choice is actually more moral than the other. Of course there are situations where it would be totally impossible for someone to release some information about the military, but at the same time transparency is the key to making ethical decisions.

How Hate Spreads like a Wildfire

Meghan Titterington
mt227615@ohio.edu

Toxic Hate in America 

It's no secret that hate crimes and hate speech are rising concerns in America. However, I find most media outlets' inability to handle such an increase in disinformation even more alarming because their social forums tend to be the hub for this widespread animosity. Extremists have the power to spread their message with a velocity no one has ever seen, where clicking 'post' can result in large scale readership and eventually hit mainstream media coverage.

The Genie is Out of the Bottle 

Now you might be thinking, "Well, what measures are social media platforms taking to censor and remove such content?" The answer to this is tricky because each news station, social media outlet or even person in America most likely has a slightly different answer if they were asked to define hate speech. Refining what constitutes hate speech in social media content is extremely difficult, which is why action needs to be taken across all channels to reach a conclusion on how to identify such heinous propaganda. An article published by The New York Times discussed how hate 'thrives' on social media, calling special attention to the hashtag #jewsdid911 and its popularity following the devastating shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue. When the word "Jews" was searched on Instagram, 11,696 posts popped up with that hashtag. This is just one example of how hate spreads like wildfire.

A man stops at each Star of David with the names of the 11 people killed during a mass shooting at The Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Courtesy of time.com  

In reality, it's a global epidemic. Social media outlets grew tremendously in the last several years, but that also meant that their user base and influence reached record highs. These companies never understood the ramifications of their influence that provokes "free speech," whether it be positive or negative, and now the genie is out of the bottle. Instagram said they were actively reviewing any hashtags or content related to the Pittsburgh shooting and were taking down content that violated their policy. But is this response adequate enough to diminish the extremity of this toxic outbreak? If social media has this much influence, they need policies in place to remove hateful speech before it escalates to further detriment. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter reported that they were investing in artificial intelligence designed to locate and extract any unwanted content on their forums. Facebook and YouTube have hired thousands of employees to handle security, taking note that safety is prioritized over their notorious principle of free expression.

Moving Forward 

Completely eliminating hate speech and hate crime from our world is a far fetched ideology, but it's definitely something to strive for. I think one of the biggest problems with how hate speech/ crime escalates is in the way journalists write about it and how news stations prioritize the coverage. An article posted in Poynter discusses the challenges journalists faced when they reported on the racial violence that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia during a white nationalist rally. The article articulates the proper ways journalists should handle stories that deal with race and violence. First, be precise with your language and avoid any subjective adjectives or labels that may need clarification. Second, be specific when discussing politics and the names of political groups because sometimes journalists' descriptions are too broad. Third, make sure any video or image you include has context and accurately reflects the events that took place. Finally, avoid any use of shorthand or codes in your writing because many of your readers may not know what you know. 

"Balancing" Coverage of Hate

by Noah Wolf | nw597116@ohio.edu

White supremacists rally at the now-infamous 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottsville, Va. courtesy the New Yorker

With the increase of hate speech and hate crimes in our country in recent years, especially white supremacist terrorism, comes an increase in coverage of these events, and the people involved with them.

While this is something no journalist wants to cover, it's important that reporters recognize the gravity of these events, and cover them in such a way to match that gravity.

It's something on which many publications have fallen short, in a few different ways.

An Emphasis on Humanization

It's normal and understandable, in situations of hate crimes and similar events, to write feature stories about the people behind them. It serves multiple purposes: to humanize those behind the hate (they are human after all) and to show people that these hateful humans exist, probably in your neighborhood.

But that desire to humanize can make a story's tone seem sympathetic.

That's exactly what happened for the New York Times, when they wrote a profile on Tony Hovater, a white supremacist from New Carlisle, Ohio. They called it "A Voice of Hate in America's Heartland," and it drew sharp criticism from all corners of the internet.

Some took issue with the story's tone of humanizing this man, talking about his love for public radio or his cat. Others took issue with the story's existence in the first place, or at least the lack of explanation for why the story exists in the first place.

The story's writer, Richard Fausset, said he wanted to uncover why Hovater had shifted toward white supremacism so sharply from a different political past. But that question wasn't answered in the story. A lack of an answer isn't an answer, and it doesn't justify the story's existence.

(The story also included a link to a website which sells swastika armbands, which should be pretty clearly unethical in and of itself, and the Times removed the link later. They justified its inclusion in the first place by saying it "was intended to show the darker reality beyond the anodyne language of the website.")

A Hole of Justice

On the other end of the spectrum, some journalists lack in their coverage of white supremacist terrorism by not covering it wholly enough, as in failing to report or talk about all the facts.

The facts I'm talking about were brought to light by ProPublica in a brilliant piece, "What We Discovered in a Year of Covering Hate," which took a wholistic, data-centered approach to the big picture problem of white supremacism.

Important things they uncovered:

• Over half of hate crime victims don't file a police report
• Almost 90 percent of local law enforcement reported no hate crimes in their communities
• Federal agencies don't often send their statistics to the FBI

These facts make it so reporters have to do more than just crawl their local police blotter to report on hate crimes in their community. It's not just what shows up on the final statistics at the end of the year; there are hate crimes happening all over the country that aren't reported to the justice system, which makes that system an unreliable source in the reporting of those events.

Hate Speech in America

Alex Vella
av130415@ohio.edu

Free speech versus hate speech has been a controversial topic for quite some time now. This past year there have been unfortunate cases of hate speech occurring across the country. With social media being as popular as it is today, it is a target for hate speech. While hate speech is not a new topic, since it has been around for decades, social media has made it more prevalent today and has allowed more and more people to read these sexist, hurtful and homophobic comments.

Photo by: https://images.app.goo.gl/QUCeRG97rMwBkk6w6

In wake of the synagogue shooting that occurred in Pittsburgh, a search for the word "Jews" on Instagram displayed thousands of posts along with the hashtag "#jewsdid911." As I stated earlier, hate speech is an issue that has been around for years, but as you can see from thousands of posts created on Instagram after this incident it is more common to see today. For anyone, sitting behind a computer, phone, or tablet makes it simple to post whatever is on your mind onto social media. This reason of comfort is exactly why I believe we are seeing more and more hate speech on social media. This leads into the argument of being able to post as you wish because of free speech. According to an article by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "The U.S Constitution guarantees that in America you are free to hate - and say so - as long as you don't threaten anyone." A question that lingers among this topic is, will new speech laws be created to distinguish the difference between free speech and hate speech?

On the other side of violent, hateful crimes are journalists that report on these incidents. Journalists faced many challenges when covering the racial violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia. As journalists, precision is key. Using Charlottesville as an example, journalists should refrain from calling the marchers White nationalists. Instead, the journalist should report what the marchers were saying instead of specifying them to a particular racist group. If the journalist has factual evidence that these marchers were a part of this racist group, then it would only be accurate to say so. Not only do journalists need to think about the words they are using, but also images and videos that they are posting. It is important that journalists select images that truthfully portray the incidents that occurred. Also, when implementing videos into stories, captions or narration should be used the clarify anything that may be considered confusing. Poynter lists more advice for the journalists reporting on the Charlottesville event or any similar event.

At the end of the day with social media being used by millions of people daily, hate speech will not go away. However, things can be done to try and stop the spreading of hate speech. For example, any discussion post, chat room or blog should be taken down if it is clearly publishing hate speech and threatening those of any sexual orientation, race, etc. In addition, it is journalist's duty to report on hate speech that is occurring and remain unbiased. It is the journalist's ultimate duty to report information that is accurate, truthful and fully transparent.

A Journalist's Approach to Hate Speech

Joe Weiner
jw441915@ohio.edu

Hate Speech on The Rise

The advancement of technology has made it easy for people from around the world to share their ideas and opinions through social media. These internet pathways of communication have many advantages like timeliness or mass outreach. Which means that harmful ideas of hatred can spread like wildfire on these platforms. Hate speech has become a major issue in society and in journalism following the 2016 election.

ProPublica did some research into hate crimes and how they are handled following the 2016 election and the results are telling. The research found that almost half of the victims of hate crimes never report the crime. They also mention a rise in hearing the phrase “go back to your country.”

connectsafely.org

How it spreads

Platforms like Twitter and Instagram have allowed us to connect to our friends and strangers on the internet more than ever. These platforms also allow for the rapid spread of hate. The New York Times found eleven thousand posts with the hashtag #jewsdid9/11. These websites have all made different pledges as to how they will stop the spread of hate speech. They all plan to use artificial intelligence to vet posts the platforms. Youtube said specifically that they are adding over 10,000 employees just to review content posted to the site.

How to Cover Hate Speech

The rise of hate speech in our discourse means the rise of news stories involving hate speech. How can a journalist tactfully cover a story regarding hate speech? There are a few hints that Poynter gives us. One way is to be precise in your reporting by not using far-reaching labels in your coverage. Specifically point out who the group is and what they were doing. The reporter must also be precise in the language they use to describe events like protests or riots. Another thing that journalists can do when it comes to covering hate speech is give full context of video or images. The world we live in is very reactionary. It’s too easy for someone to see a photo that impacts them emotionally and share it. It’s important for these heavy images to have the proper context so that the truth can come out. You have to avoid propping up certain groups. The KKK would love to be legitimized through your coverage of them. They want a picture with their flag portrayed front and center of your newspaper. One final thing you can do combat hate speech through your reporting is avoiding shorthand. We need to be extremely precise in reporting of these occurrences. It’s pertinent to explain each detail in stories involving hate speech. The reporter can never assume that the audience knows what they do. Like its important to note how Charlottesville started. The violent and scary protest that left a couple people dead and many others scared started because a confederate statue was being removed. A detail like that can give an entire other layer of context to an already hard to digest story.

Covering Hate

Maire Simpson | ms316416@ohio.edu 

Hate speech. It has been a topic that has gained popularity, especially over the past several years as politics infiltrate social media and the political climate has become more and more intense. Everyone has a different definition of hate speech, but the consequences of hate speech are the same: there are no consequences because the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected under the First Amendment. People are allowed to freely spew hatred because it is their right as an American citizen who has freedom of speech. This has created issues for journalists who are also protected under the First Amendment but must ethically cover these topics of hate speech and hate crimes across the U.S. 

Hate Speech and Social Media 
Over the years, the prevalence of hate speech has spiked due to the rise of social media platforms that provide a place for people to produce content that is often anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, or islamophobic. Not only are these platforms providing a place, but they are also maintaining and sustaining these areas of hate. According to USA TODAY, "The research showed that hate groups collected more 'likes' to tweets and comments in 2016 than in any other year since 2008. From 2014 and 2015, the number of 'likes' on hate group tweets and comments tripled, and from 2015 to 2016 they tripled again." Due to this protection of hate speech, these organizations have been able to connect and share ideologies without any repercussions for the violence that has been incited because these groups are allowed to thrive on social media. It was when social media sites and platforms started to look directly at the power of these hate groups and hate speech on their platforms after the attack that happened in Charlottesville. 

Illustration by Mars Dorian 

Covering Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Ethically
Charlottesville had an immense impact on how journalists should similar cover events and how social media platforms go about censorship. According to the New York Times: "Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube have all announced plans to invest heavily in artificial intelligence and other technology aimed at finding and removing unwanted content from their sites." Which is great right? Well, throwing money and resources towards banning content will help to mitigate the ability that extremists will have to connect and share ideas, but this will not help the way that the country understands and covers hate crimes. Thankfully, companies and news organizations like ProPublica, who wish to cover these stories ethically have created a space for other organizations to learn about covering hate crimes after doing research about the past coverage of such events. ProPublica has discovered that hate crimes were just not being covered therefore the impact of hate speech online was going unnoticed. They have created a coalition of over 130 newsrooms to cover the hate crimes that are happening every day on college campuses and in most public spaces. Since then, they have seen an increase in not only coverage of hate crimes, but also the procedural policies for police when they report hate crimes. with I can tell we are moving in the right direction slowly but surely thanks to organizations who are pushing to create a safer future.

How Much Freedom of Expression Do You Have On Social Media?

Gabrielle Zita
gz628315@ohio.edu

In today's society, social media is taking on all new forms of communication. Many people use their social media platforms to share their opinions, both the good and the bad. Everyone knows that the First Amendment allows Americans to have freedom of speech, but how much protection does one have when posting on certain social media platforms?


Most Freedom
According to an article called "Free Expression on Social Media," written by Lata Nott from the First Amendment Center, Reddit, Snapchat and Twitter users have the most freedom when it comes to hate speech. Reddit permits hate speech unless it "encourages or incites violence, threatens, harasses, or bullies, or encourages others to do so." According to Snapchat's Terms of Service, one may not use the service in a manner that "violates or infringes someone else's rights of publicity, privacy, copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights," " bullies, harasses, or intimidates," "defames," "spams or solicits our users." Lastly, Twitter has similar policies that include not posting anything that promotes violence against or threatens a specific race, ethnicity, gender, religious officiation, etc.

Some Freedom
According to Nott's article, Facebook and Instagram have some freedom when it comes to expression, but not a lot. Like the other social media platforms above, Facebook forbids posts that are harmful or threatening. In 2013, Facebook wrote a statement stating that they had received several complaints of hate speech towards many different ethnicities and genders. In the statement, they explained their philosophy and policies when it comes to harmful and threatening content. They said that they define harmful content as "anything organizing real-world violence, theft, or property destruction, or that directly inflicts emotional distress on a specific private individual." They shared that they have the ability to remove anything that violates their policy. They do, however, allow humor and satire of such topics. Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, prohibits the use of hate speech unless it is shared to challenge it or raise awareness to it, and one must show clear proof of that.

Little Freedom
Out of all of the social media platforms, YouTube has the least amount of freedom when it comes to expression. According to YouTube's Hate Speech Policy, hate speech is not allowed. They will remove any content that they believe shows violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on the attributes of age, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, sex/gender, etc. They encourage those that find anything that violates this policy to report it. After several counts of hate speech, YouTube will terminate one's account.

https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-bans-soph-far-right-channel-hate-speech-threatens-headquarters-2019-8

How We Can Stop It
If you are a social media user, it is important to know how you can stop hate speech from occurring. According to an article titled "5 Ways to Counter Hate Speech in the Media through Ethics and Self-regulation," by Poni Alice JameKolok, there are a few things you can do. The first is to be educated on media ethics. Realizing your First Amendment rights is important, but knowing how to use it in a way that isn't harmful or threatening to others is even more important. If you are educated in media ethics, it can help you to become aware of the issues and how to stop them. The second way one can counter hate speech is to encourage journalists to write conflict- sensitive reporting and multicultural awareness campaigns. This will help to show audiences that journalists are on the same team as them when it comes to the diversity of cultures.

Considerations in Reporting on Violent Crime- Extra Credit

Kaylie Harden
kh423915@ohio.edu

In the United States, violent crimes occur about once every 24 seconds. So by the time you're done reading this blog post, about 10 violent crimes will have occurred, depending on how fast you read. Within Ohio, violent crimes are most prevalent in the city of Cleveland, which has a crime rate more than twice of the state capital, Columbus.

Violent crime is widely considered to be crime that involves a victim, or inflicts harm onto others. While the victims of violent crime are the most effected by these horrible instances, the occurrence and fluctuation in violent crime rates also impacts the way that law enforcement investigates, how the judicial system addresses, and how journalists report on such crimes. 

As an investigative reporter for The Plain Dealer, Rachel Dissell shared her experiences and advice in dealing with trauma victims and survivors of violent crime. What stood out most were her experiences with sexual assault and domestic violent in teen dating, as these are problems that remain consistently relevant on college campuses like Ohio University. 

When reporting on crimes of sexual violence, it can be difficult as a journalist to find the right balance between reporting the truth to the public and minimizing harm. In cases of sexual violence, women will often withdraw from an investigator or reporter if they don't feel believed or they do not trust the person they are talking to. As journalists, we are trained to raise questions of truth in order to avoid reporting facts or stories that are untrue. However, to a victim, traditional methods of questioning can feel like they are doubted or not taken seriously. The FBI determines that the number of unfounded accusations of sexual assault only account for about 8% of all cases. What this means is, for the sake of the 92% telling the truth, reports on such crimes need to be taken seriously from the beginning, until evidence suggests otherwise. Dissell noted that unconfident attitudes towards victims of violent crimes can lead journalists and investigators to miss details that may be critical to a story or investigation, and thus increases the possibility that a perpetrator of violent crime continues to terrorize a community. In any kind of crime, it is integral that every claim be treated seriously to better protect the public. 

(Photo by thevarsity.ca)

On the other hand, it is also important that journalists aim to minimize harm and avoid sensationalizing stories covering violent crime. In crimes of malicious nature, associating a wrongly accused perpetrator or assuming guilt before conviction can be especially damaging to a persons status and career. Furthermore, it can draw more attention to victims who may not be comfortable with publicity. As the codes of ethics state, only the absolute truth should be reported. 

With the information and resources available today, it is not difficult to identify the ways in which a violent crime can impact a victim or a community. However, what often gets overlooked is how violent crimes and traumatic events can impact the reporters and first responders that work directly with the victims. A career in these fields can have an impact on professionals similar to that of the victims. Exposure to horrific crimes can become consuming or depressing, and can inhibit ones ability to do their job effectively, or even function normally. In order to preserve mental health, first responders and journalists covering tough stories should be cognizant of they're own patterns and behaviors. Ways to maintain a healthy mindset include indulging in positive moments with loved ones, limiting the number of hours that are dedicated to work, and sharing particularly difficult assignments with trusted co-workers or family members.

By being more attentive to a survivor's emotional state, definite facts, and personal mental health, journalists can limit the negative effects of trauma and violent crime on survivors, the community and themselves.

Social Media's Shaping of Hate

Samantha Romstadt
sr448016@ohio.edu

There is no denying that hate speech and hate crimes have always been around. There is also no denying that social media has increased these words and actions. Whether it be through exposure online or feelings about the world changing, people have become bolder and bolder with their choices and actions, using free speech to defend themselves. Social media allows people to share their thoughts and ideals with anyone they want, anonymity further emboldens those who turn to social media to spread hate. As CNN shared in an article about big tech's role in hate speech that, "Social media has given people a platform to spew hate speech and radical beliefs to other disaffected people, amplifying what are otherwise fringe opinions. A few have turned that hate into violence." What is even scarier is that spreading this hate can shape the opinions of many young and impressionable people. When one is exposed to so much hate, especially toward one specific group/organization, it is not a far stretch to see how their own opinions and beliefs will begin to take shape to those around them.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) compared hate speech on social media at a global level, finding that "As more and more people have moved online, experts say, individuals inclined toward racism, misogyny or homophobia have found niches that can reinforce their views and goad them to violence." The article went on to further share examples of social media postings that led to an increase in violence attacks from New Zealand to India to the United States. Before social media, extremists were lacking in ways to share and spread their extremist opinions and ideas. The audiences were limited and it was difficult to find others with matching views. Now, social media has spun a web, connecting extremists from around the world, giving them the ability to not only spread their ideas but also shape the opinions of others, in turn leading to a dangerous situation all around the world. While many social media companies have begun monitoring their sites for hate speech, little can show for these efforts. In a New York Times article, it was said that Facebook only flagged 38% of hate speech this year in contrast to the 96% of nudity and 99.5% of terrorist content. Clearly this shows a stark contrast in what Facebook deems dangerous, however we have seen what hate speech can lead to.

While hate speech happens on college campuses, public transportation and even walking down the street, nothing gives hate speech a platform the way social media does. If someone yelled a comment on the street that was Islamophobic, it is not likely a large group would join in and continue this behavior and then continue building on the ideas of others. But, on social media, this can and does happen. People meet others with the same ideas of hatred and this is where the danger lies. One can be encouraged to act upon their feelings that they might not have if they were not encouraged and egged on. Social media companies need to take hate speech as seriously as they do nudity because once an idea of hate is out there, there is no going back.

Map depicts states with and without laws against hate crimes and the collection of data. Retrieves from  PBS News Hour.

Reporting Hate Speech Ethically

Kiara Recchione
kr604316@ohio.edu

What is Hate Speech?

Hate speech is not necessarily a new phenomenon in the United States, but it is certainly receiving an increase in attention due to the rise of social media. Hate speech can be defined as verbal and nonverbal expression used to intentionally demean, oppress, or promote violence toward a group of people based on their ethnic or social group. It is most commonly utilized by people belonging to a majority or dominant population who feel threatened by a minority population. Almost anyone can be a target of hate speech in regard to factors like race, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, disability, and age.

The Role of Social Media

Social media gives users across the world the ability to easily and effectively communicate with each other, but it also leads to serious negative consequences. With this ease in communication comes a new way to organize groups for a cause, whether positive or negative. The age of social media has seen a dramatic increase in the amount of users banding together in order to share hate speech targeted at a particular group or various groups. After the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh last October, numerous social media platforms saw an uptick in anti-Semitic rhetoric spread online. This is extremely concerning due to the tendency of these social media groups to radicalize users.

White Supremacy on the Internet

When many Americans think of terrorism within the United States, they are likely to cite Islamic terrorists. However, this judgement does not reflect the majority of attacks due to the heavy presence of white supremacists that are a threat to millions of Americans, according to an article by the Columbia Journalism Review. From the race riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, to the church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, the perpetrators of these hate crimes had a presence on social media. In the past, white supremacists were confined to their individual organizations like the Klu Klux Klan, but are now capable of reaching a national audience. This significant influence has the potential to spread hate at an alarming rate.

Photo courtesy of whowhatwhy.com

Depiction of Hate Crime Perpetrators in the Media

In order to combat the negative influence of those that commit hate crimes, it is the duty of the press to report these crimes fairly and responsibly. Unfortunately, there has been a pattern of articles released lately that are seemingly relaxed in their critique of white nationalists. In 2017, the New York Times released an article that effectively normalized the presence of an extremist party in rural Ohio. This is extremely problematic because the interviewee was not held accountable for his controversial views, just simply given publicity.

How to Report Hate

Resulting from the discrepancies in hate speech and hate crime reporting, the news organization ProPublica took it upon themselves to gather accurate data regarding the phenomenon in the United States. In this all-encompassing account of hate rhetoric and actions across the country, ProPublica held police forces, government institutions, and the individual perpetrators at a high standard. It is necessary to focus on the facts and the facts only. Sympathizing with those who threaten the livelihood of countless Americans has no room in the free press.

Hate Speech v. Journalists: What do we do?

Luke Steiner
ls290516@ohio.edu

Picture Courtesy of the Daily Princetonian

What is Hate Speech?

Depending on who you ask, Hate Speech is a type of speech that can have multiple different definitions, especially if the person you ask has been affected by Hate Speech. Hate Speech is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as, "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation." The concept of Hate Speech has been around for a long time, originating in groups like the Ku Klux Klan or Nazi Germany. Some people believe that Hate Speech is more prevalent today than it was in the past because of the political climate of the world as well as social media. Sadly, hate is something that has been shown to thrive on Social Media, with innumerable examples.

Now v. Past

There are lots of changes in the world from the past to now, and all of the changes stem from a singular thing, Technology. The world has changed an incredible amount since technology has been introduced in all aspects of life and in all careers. It is impossible to be a successful worker in today's society without some set of technology skills. The way that people talk to each other is no different from any aspect of life that is changing with technology.

As technology has advanced, people have used that technology negatively in interaction with other people on the internet. This includes Hate Speech as well. Technology is feeding into Hate Speech because people on the internet are hiding behind a false mask that gives them the confidence to say bad things about other people. Some researchers even like to believe that now with technology, Hate Speech is more prevalent than ever before because people do not get punished for what they say on the internet because it is hard to find that person and confront them. Whereas in the past, when people used to talk only face-to-face, it was easier to confront someone that was using Hate Speech toward a certain group or ethnicity. Also, people will use the internet as an excuse for publishing Hate Speech somewhere, by saying that their account was hacked if it is brought up to them. Sadly, the internet is causing an uptick in Hate Speech, which is furthering groups apart in our society.

Example of Hate Speech on Social Media
Photo Courtesy of Convershaken.com

What can we do as Journalists?

As Journalists, we too have Hate Speech brought against us because of the job that we do. Certain people may not like what we say about a certain story, but the way that we approach Hate Speech is just like any other story. We need to do our job as Journalists, to tell the truth, and to not promote a certain agenda of one side of the story, that could include Hate Speech. Do what we are trained to do, stay neutral in language and just simply put the facts that we have researched down. It is imperative for us as Journalists to not let Hate Speech or any other type of bias to leak into our stories, especially if the stories may contain video. If there is a video that is shown that may contain Hate Speech, censoring should be used to protect the public. Some may think that we should show what is said, but it is giving the people that said such horrible things what they want. They want what they said to be heard, we need to keep it quiet to minimize harm as well as not give the bad people what they want. A perfect example of both how to and how not to do handle hate speech is the situation at Charlottesville in 2017. Certain media outlets did show hate speech and certain media outlets that did not. Nevertheless, if a Journalist does their job properly, there is no way that a Journalist could be promoting Hate Speech in a story. 

Conditioned to Hate

Chloe Ruffennach

cr584116@ohio.edu

Photo from http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2018/10/hate-speech-deserves-a-second-look

We hear hate speech in our media and our politics. From our favorite celebrities to our own president, hateful, bigoted language is considered a norm in this country. It seems to be increasing, with a direct correlation between the rise of this hate speech and a rise in politically-motivated violence. In this era of national terrorism, we need to recognize this rhetoric and actively call it out.

Racist remarks have too often been considered a display of nationalism. This is especially obvious in the age of social media where videos of white people shouting at people of color to "go back to their country" can pop up on timelines every single day. The idea that those who are white think they can dictate who can stay in this country and who must leave based upon skin color and accents is a product of centuries of conditioning.

The hate speech we are seeing is not just limited to race. Gender is also the subject of vicious, and often violent hate. Transgender people are murdered, and women are blamed for their own assaults over their gender. The media often creates critical errors in regard to gender as well. Headlines don't need to cite an assaulters' extracurriculars or vilify women who are bold and vocal. Even the idea that presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton lack "electability" also stems from the hateful and sexist idea that women are not fit to lead.

Hate speech has even been given the opportunity to be more visible and frequent in the era of social media. With the click of a button, mass amounts of people can be subjected to vile thoughts and threats. In fact, sites such as Gab allow these extremist views to fester to the point of violence. One could consider these to be platforms for the hateful rhetoric seen in our country that too often results in violence against minority groups.

We are conditioned as a society to set standards and view those who do not meet them as "others." Since this country was founded, the standard has been white, straight, cis-gendered and male. The idea that those who deviate from this standard are finding a voice and becoming empowered is terrifying to those who have set the status quo since the creation of this country. Their terror makes them lash out, spew hate and push back with violence. This discrimination is encouraged both actively and casually by even our most prominent political figures and revered celebrities.

That's why it's essential to call out this bigotry when you see it. It doesn't make you a bad person to call out your friends for making off-color jokes. In fact, if they're truly your friend they will understand their error, accept the education and be grateful for your advice. We need to be aware of this rhetoric and call it out whenever we see it. Complacency is just as bad as actively contributing to the problem, especially when Americans' lives are at stake.

Hate Speech in the Media

By: Cassidy Voase
cv770715@ohio.edu

Hate Speech History: Past, Present and Future 

Hate speech is defined as "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation." The idea of hate speech, while originating in groups such as the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, has been around for ages. In fact, it could be argued that hate speech is just as prevalent of an issue in today's society as it was back in Hitler's time. With a tense political climate whose people of power express both open and discreetly veiled racist, homophobic and sexist comments and views, we as media and news consumers are constantly exposed to just how controversial these examples of hate speech can be. Whether it's a seemingly innocuous comment made toward a black man, a shooting at a gay nightclub or a bombing of a Jewish synagogue, hate speech comes in many shapes and forms in today's society.


So What's the Difference Now?

Perhaps the most obvious difference between hate speech of the past and that of today is technology. As technological advances have been made in computers, phones, laptops and tablets throughout the years, it has become increasingly easier for hate speech to be spread across global platforms such as blogs and social media. Technology and social media feed into hate speech and offer those who participate in it a wider sounding board to voice their opinions. Furthermore, these people are then able to easily come across likeminded individuals who share the same ideologies and therefore further fuel the fire of hate speech. This article highlights the extreme reach that social media can have in feeding into hate speech, and offers insight into just how easy it is to practice hate speech with not much more than a few clicks of a computer button.

Some discussion posts, blogs and chat rooms are created specifically as a means to further discuss such hate speech, which obviously wasn't possible back in the days where computers and technology didn't exist. These platforms allow for open discussion and provide a niche space for those looking to engage in targeted hate speech.

The below image highlights an example in which an individual posted hate speech on Twitter for people to see and further engage with. The tweet was composed in what was probably less than a minute and was sent out for the world to see in even less time than that.

What Can Journalists Do?

As journalists, we must be extra careful and word choice, audio and visuals when reporting on sensitive hate speech content. It's imperative to stay neutral in language and simply report the facts of the story as it unfolds and not as the ways in which we as individuals might view it. This includes not incorporating any political, religious, gender or other bias. When reporting on these topics, terms used to describe subjects is crucial in maintaining an ethical report and in not offending any party. In terms of visuals and audio, censoring may be implemented in some cases in which vulgar or obscene language or imagery is used in order to protect the public audience from further exposure to such sensitive content.

Ethics in War

Brad Walker

bw284116@ohio.edu

Courtesy: http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2015/2/2/war-reporting-comes-at-a-price/_jcr_content/mainpar/adaptiveimage/src.adapt.480.low.gorantomasevic_1.jpg

The coverage of war can be quite compelling. You will face multiple ethical decisions as a journalist on what to report and it can be hard in these times. There are many stakeholders that go into each decision. You have to take into account the soldiers, the citizens of the country the war is in, families of the soldiers and the right you hold to provide truth to the citizens you are reporting for.

In many cases, it is the images and the videos that provide the most insight into what is happening in the war. People may pay attention to the articles and the voice-overs for a video, but for the most part it is what you show visually that will grab people's attention. Photographers and Videographers alike are in similar situations.

What should they post?

The images they do show to the public can not be unseen. As a viewer or reader of the coverage, you will get some sense of what the military is going through. You can also view it from the perspective of a civilian. What's their every day like? What are they seeing? Both questions can be responded to by journalists' coverage of the war while being in a war zone.

A factor that journalists have to deal with while covering the war is their own personal safety. According to Newssafety.org, a journalist must come fully prepared from a mental and physical standpoint. Some ways you would be able to do that are by knowing common phrases in the country you speak in. Also, wear civilian clothing, so you can fit in with the locals.

When in the war zone, you have the ability to share the news that no one else can see.

Sure people can report about the politics happening around the war and what each side is fighting for, but if you are on fighting grounds you are able to uncover happenings that no one has seen before. No better example of this than the stories done by Seymour Hesh. This showed some really dark times in the war that no one would have known about if there had not been a journalist willing to go into combat.

A more recent report shows that the UK is covering up war crimes. According to the Guardian, there has been abuse by the British Army. This would be the story that could have first-hand accounts if there was a journalist there to cover it. They would be able to provide first-hand accounts of the situation happening in the Middle East with the British Army.

All in all, there should be a lot of credit given to journalists that are willing to enter into a war zone. You hear a lot of news about the war from people sitting in studios or reporting in front of government buildings, but it is the ones who can provide material from those first-hand experiences that give you a glimpse of what truly is happening in times of war.

Being Ethical when Covering Combat

Isaac Miller
im30016@ohio.edu

Making ethical decisions is an important aspect of journalism. We are the ones who report to the public about important issues and topics. Making ethical decisions in our work will give people more reason to trust us.  The most important value for any journalist, in my opinion, is to always be truthful. Another value that I believe is important is minimizing harm. Both of these values, in my opinion, are the most important when it comes to covering war and combat. Another reason we need to be ethical when covering combat is that there are terrorists out there who understand how the media works.

             https://dartcenter.org/resources/journalists-and-safety-training-experiences-and-opinions

Covering war and combat is a dangerous job, and there have been more than 1,000 journalists who have been killed or seriously injured while they are covering war and over conflicts aboard, according to Frank Greve's article. They are also at risk of getting captured. It is a dangerous job, but I think it is a necessary thing to do so certain things that occur abroad do not go unnoticed by the American people. I think that the ethical principles that I have mentioned will help journalists in the coverage of war and combat.

Truth is important in covering war and combat because reporting information that is incorrect could have consequences for us and/or our nation's security. We need to verify things   Minimizing harm is important because there are some things that we get footage of that could be disturbing and/or offensive to some people. A good way to warn people of disturbing content is to put a warning before it is shown that says it may be disturbing to some viewers.

There are things that should be published because they could help to expose bad things that are going on. There was a photographer during the Vietnam War named Ron Haeberle who was traveling with an army unit. The unit went to the hamlet of My Lai and killed hundreds of people there. He took photos of people who had been killed, and one of them was eventually published in a Cleveland newspaper. He showed the photos that he took to people, and there were people that could not believe what had happened. I think that Haeberle was right to show these photos because it helped to document something bad that the soldiers were doing. A journalist named Seymour M. Hersh reported the story. The story that he uncovered won the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Lt. William M. Calley had been behind the murder of hundreds of people in My Lai. It was not right what Calley did in My Lai, and it needed to be exposed. It is our duty as journalists to hold the powerful accountable, and I think that it was good that Seymour M. Hersh reported what had happened.

I do not know what kind of things I may cover in the future as a journalist, but I think will be sure to keep the ethical principles I have mentioned in mind if I cover things that could be disturbing to some people. There are things that could be disturbing, but it is important to report them because they could help to hold the powerful accountable.

The Tragedy of My Lai and The Brave Ron Haeberle

Back in the year of 1968, American soldiers did something truly unbelievable and disturbing. Not only is it well known about what these thought to be American heroes did but there is picture proof. This all occurred in My Lai, Vietnam on March 16, 1968. The man to capture this terrible tragedy was Ron Haeberle who is also an Ohio University alumni and Cleveland resident.

https://www.pulitzer.org/article/i-sent-them-good-boy-and-they-made-him-murderer

Above is a picture captured by Ron Haeberle of My Lai residents who were tortured, killed, raped and murdered by American forces.

Being a journalist, photographer and a man in the army had to be hard for Rob Haeberle. Many did not want to tell the harsh truth and horrendous acts done in Vietnam, but he was one that could not keep the truth a secret. Thinking of his loyalty to the army and also the people, Rob Haeberle made a decision that would change his and the rest of America's life forever. A year later he did what was right for the people and shared the real truth. In November 1969, Rob Haeberle shared the pictures that he took from My Lai. These pictures showed America was really happened that day and now only how gruesome it was but how unethical the soldiers were. He released these pictures and told the true story to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. By not covering up this horrific event, Rob Haeberle was not only brave but a man who stuck up for the truth and the importance about seeking truth and reporting it back to the public. He made sure he told the story of these innocent victims and the role he fulfilled.

Since the event back in the year of 1968, Rob Haeberle has been back multiple times. He has even connected with survivors that he remembers and has photographed proof of them or their family members who died because of the massacre. Through this he has been able to connect with them on a more personal level and explain, as well as understand, what they both lived being on two different sides of the spectrum. By going back to where this all started you see how this story was something Rob Haeberle could not just let slide. He knew he had an obligation to the victims, to the American people and to just do what he knew was right.

Many journalists would find it terribly hard to make the decision Rob Haeberle made. The decision to seek truth and report it can be hard because what and who is at risk. It becomes even more harder when the person or company involved is the United State Army. Even though the decision is not easy, it must be done and a real journalist will make sure it does. As an ethical journalist, photographer and soldier, Rob Haeberle knew what he had to do. He had to do his job for the people and the fulfill his obligation to those effected. Without his bravery and dedication to the people, no one would really know what happened that day. 

As journalist we have to remember why and how to do our job. We have to remember to follow the code of ethics and fulfill our obligation to the people no matter what. Rob Haeberle not only showed how important journalism and photography is but also showed the dedication you have to have to even be a journalist. Ones man truth and dedication to the people changed the world. We need more people like Rob Haeberle so we also can be a tool and asset for ourselves, the people and anyone else.  

Combat Photography: My Lai Massacre

Meghan McManamon
mm434215@ohio.edu

Imagine that you are a photojournalist that was sent to report in a warzone. You see a young boy shot and killed by an American soldier in a crossfire. As a photojournalist, you are left to ask yourself one question: do I take this photo?

This might be a hard question to ask yourself because human instinct probably tells you not to or that you must help in some way. Another thing to debate is not to take the picture because the American soldier did not mean to hit the boy. It is the journalist's duty to their job and to their country to take that picture. They would do it despite being credible for the American soldier or the terrible death of the young boy because of their ethical standards to report the truth. Photojournalist Michael Kamber stated to CBS in an interview, "You never fake a photograph. If we ever saw a photographer altering a scene in any way, they would never work again. That was really the code, was it had to be done with complete integrity."

These ethical decisions were made by Robert Haeberle, a combat photojournalist, who was in My Lai on March 16th, 1968. Hundreds of innocent people were violently murdered by American soldiers in a small village. The Infantry Brigade, Charlie Company, was sent to the area after being given a search-and-destroy mission against Viet Cong troops that were reported to be passing through the village. Men, women, and children were victims of this tragedy. Lt. William Calley was leading the American troops and ordered his soldiers to round up the villagers and shoot them with machine guns. Not a single shot was fired at the American soldiers but, in no time, hundreds of innocent civilians were killed.

Photo Courtesy to Ron Haeberlie/TIME/Getty Images

 

Haeberle took many photos of the victims and the soldiers during this time that are very disturbing. It was not until a year after the massacre that the Cleveland Plain Dealer finally published his photos. It came as a shock to many Americans and most went into denial. It is hard to believe that the people that you think are fighting for your freedom just killed hundreds of innocent, unarmed people. Along with Haeberle reporting many instances of young girls and women being raped before they’d be executed. Though Haeberle felt that what was going on wasn’t right, he knew it was his job as a photographer to capture it all. 

The fact that many Americans went into denial is the main reason why war photography is ethical. Although it seems wrong to capture gruesome events, photos are a very strong piece of evidence to prove what actually happens in warzones. In the case of My Lai, Robert Haeberle’s photos are the only thing that the court had to prove that innocent people were the victims of this.

Another ethical issue at this time was that the American government was being accused of trying to keep this situation quiet. It was not until three years after the massacre that Lt. William Calley was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Without photo evidence, the decision would have taken a very long time to come to a conclusion because of soldiers siding with Calley were saying that all killed were Viet Cong troops. 

A lot of the Haeberle's photos that you can see are only feet and minutes away from where these massacres occurred. That just goes to show the dedication that photojournalists take to report the truth. Capturing these images not only is a risk for the photographer’s credibility but is a risk to their lives.