Spiraling Virtually

Cara Renfro 

cr322818@ohio.edu 

 

From a tool created to make life easier, technology has become something much more. Technology has developed from a means of information and communication to the center of the society. As a tool that has positively affected society in countless ways, could anyone have anticipated the dangers and challenges of technology taking a life of its own? 

Technology balances the line of truth and fiction imperfectly. The root of many issues technology presents is that people believe what they read. People see virtual as reality. What exactly are these issues that stem? 

The overwhelming capacity of social media connects everyone from all walks of life. Which means that when one person creates a false or misleading post, it spreads far and wide. The power of this discourages free thinking. It is ironic that a system supposedly used for communication of knowledge and opinions has in many ways led to a lack of research and beneficial conversation for many. 

These connected ideas are represented in an article written by Ravi Somaiya entitled "The Junk Cycle." In this article, Somaiya gives example of an edited video of Nancy Pelosi that was slowed down to resemble drunk slurring. Some social media users would believe their eyes, others would not. When publications and people of high status re-post it, however, the masses follow. 

As false information spreads, it is important that those in positions of power or authority monitor what is put out there for the public. Fact-checkers are present within social media, but are these fact-checkers accurate all of the time? Not according to Candace Owens. 

An article, written by Lucy Collins, explains recent events involving Candace Owens and Facebook fact-checkers. Collins wrote, " Owens recently won her appeal to Facebook's third party fact-checker PolitiFact over a video in which she claimed Joe Biden was not yet the president-elect"(2020). PolitiFact issued a correction. 

                                                                  Picture source: cnsnews.com

Call to Action 

As our world of technology can be challenging to navigate deception, it is important for people to take responsibility. Social media teams need to be sure that if they are checking the facts, that they are indeed correct. 

In the instances of spreading altered content suggested as truth or censoring true information, those responsible need to realize the impact of those mistakes. Mistakes that can not afford to be made.

Technology has opened a world of wonders and benefits that have moved society forward. The public, however, needs to remember not to get lost in wonderland.

We are Drowning in Information While Starving for Wisdom: The Cyle of Junk News in America

Jaelyn R. Smith 

js105916@ohio.edu

 

Edward O. Wilson said, “we are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizer, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely.” 

 

This quote depicts a community of people who will end the cycle of junk news. The phenomenon has become more prevalent as technology and social media have evolved. Free-for-all news organizations have increasingly begun to report on what’s trending to create revenue. This type of journalism not only lacks transparency, but also lacks accountability and credibility because they are typically hyper partisan groups that promote political agendas and gossip. America and the political agendas that exist in our government have attributed to the increasing cycle of junk news; people will believe this type of reporting because it matches their beliefs, thus creating a more divided America.

 

PBS News produced a series regarding the junk news cycle and how Facebook alone has played a large role in dividing American citizens. Individuals interviewed by PBS claimed that Facebook has had a tendency to take up multiple hours of their day, as they get lost in social media algorithms that provide an endless stream of content that re-affirms that individual user’s beliefs. This is problematic given that many hyper partisan sites are created by Russian spies, intended to commit espionage and collect research on America’s political patterns and governing body as a whole. Facebook’s filter bubble allows room for error and has provides no immediate resolution for identifying Russian espionage sites. 

 

Because Americans are consistently viewing content that is one sided and information that is only confirmed by what is being said online, middle ground between American’s has been buried. Most individuals reported, Facebook did not sway their opinions, but it did harden them. This has lead PBS to ask the question, does Facebook reward polarization? 

 

Heba Aly gave a TedTalk that addressed the issues with polarized journalism.  She compared junk news to junk food. Over the past decade many Americans have become more aware with the health risks junk food can have, thus we have seen an increase in health food stores and vegetarian/ vegan options on restaurant menus. Aly claimed that if we take consciousness to what we put into our bodies, why is it that we do not want to do the same with our minds. 

 

Picture source: Bēhance

 

Journalism that is over opinionated, one sided, superficial, and lacks evidence is junk news and even more so “junk” for American minds. It was said that junk news can be considered more harmful than fake news because fake news is known to be fake, but junk news offers simplistic and uninformed narratives. Such narratives don’t offer truth or the entirety of a story, both of which should be upheld as strict values for journalists. Journalists who produce simplistic narratives and the readers that follow those narratives created and allow room for a warped view of conflicts, which lowers prospects for peace among allies and foreign affairs in general. 

 

Aly presented three reasons why should not want to acknowledge those simplistic narratives. 

 

1.    We live in an interconnected world: People, politics, environment, culture, technology, economics, and trade.

2.    Tax payer money: American citizens pay taxes and in the spirit of democracy we should want to know where our money goes and more importantly what it is accomplishing. 

3.    Common humanity: Communities are being pushed the edge by unemployment, climate change, urbanization, and violence. In all of this, American needs a united front. 

 

This being said, Americans should want to eradicate junk news; it prohibits us from preventing, responding to, and resolving crisis’. Junk news fails democracy because it fails to provide the proper information to participate as informed and active citizens. Society has become immune to entertainment over information. It is up the next generation of journalist to end the cycle and abolish simplistic narratives that create a hyper partisan and divided America. 

How Journalists Use Social Media

Brianna Smith

bs214517@ohio.edu

One thing that was highlighted through 2020 is how huge social media is. I take social media very seriously because of the amount of people that use it. Also, once you post something on social media, it can always be found on the internet. 

In regards to journalism, your social media account could get you the job you want or get you fired from your dream job. This is why if you want to be a journalist, you must learn how to use social media in an effective way.

 

Publishing Content

According to Cision (you can access here), "Between the 2012 and 2017 iterations of the Cision Global Social Journalism Study, there was a 12 percent increase in the number of journalists that said that they post content to social media platforms daily". Employers want to see you posting things to your social media! This makes it easy to show your personal values as a journalist and how well you can manage a social media while always providing content.

Creating a Ethical Environment 

As I touched on a bit above, your ethical standards as a journalist are very important and must shine through everything you do. Social media is no exception. PRSA spoke on this here. It speaks on how CEO's are looking for journalist that have the same ethical codes as them. They do this by hiring people to go through their workers social medias before they hire them and during the time they are on the workforce. 

This is why it's super important as a journalist to have an ethical code that is the backbone in every decision you make.

Stay Relevant

Another important thing to keep in mind that agility spoke on here is to always stay relevant. While posting onto your social media's account, you need to always be asking yourself if anyone would care to read or look at your creative content regarding its' relevance. 

Let's face it, as journalists we must always practice coming out with the best and most recent content/writing.

There is no escaping the dramatic pull that social media has on people. The only way to make sure you don't slip up on your personal account is to keep your ethical codes in check. If your ethical codes stay at the back of your head then you will never produce any type of content that goes against your own ethical code and you companies ethical code. 

Social media is hard to navigate as a normal person, let alone a journalist. However if you follow the step I highlighted you will be following the road to success.

Why do People Read Fake News?

Andrea Robinson

ar195815@ohio.edu

 

Most media consumers crave content that fuels their biases. This lack of self-awareness makes these types of people vulnerable to "fake news" and exaggerated conspiracies. 

Extreme headline of made up stories, written by amateur writers with internet access, have more click appeal. People want to read outrageous rumors and believe that it is the truth. 

Picture source: challoners.com

It may be hard to decipher what is real and what is fake news when opinion writer (with very strong opinions) clutter social media sites. 

I personally find it hysterical, and a little offensive, that real news is being called fake and fake news is being praised as the truth. Maybe that's my own bias as a journalist, but I can't think of any of my colleagues having a hidden agenda to spread lies in the media. 

So why do people read and believe false information?

Research conducted through the University of Regina, Canada, found that American media consumers "are more likely to fall prey to misinformation because of lazy thinking than due to any subconscious desire to protect their political identities."

Dr. Gordon Pennycook and Dr. David Rand also noted in this study that bias does still affected a person's susceptibility to believing fake news. Though, overall these types of readers tend lack thinking and motivated reasoning. 

Rand also suggest that if people were to slow down their scrolling through social media, this would help them be less susceptible to misinformation.

The attraction to misleading information is the wild headlines that pose as click-bait for any reader who is looking to read something juicy. 

"Princess Diana's secret relationship with Bill Clinton REVEALED"

"WikiLeaks confirms Obama is an immigrant"

"Trump's daughter is planning to overthrow her dad's presidency" 

"American refugees seek asylum in New Zealand avid the covid outbreak" 

Oxford researchers found that "junk media" does well because it's not bound to ethics, logic or truth.

Unfortunately, it is not common sense to disregard headlines like this. In fact, the writer behind those type of stories knows this about their readers and hope to make a profit off their naive audience. 

One Facebook fake news writer named Paul Horner said he makes about $10,000 a moth from AdSense - ad revenue based on his content's reader traffic. 

More viral content, means more shares and views, which ultimately means more money for writers like Horner. 

Facebook and Goggle have both served as vehicles for dishing out fake news content and have received criticism for it. They received backlash, especially during the 2016 presidential election, that their sites were enabling the spread of false information. 

Some social media sites, like Twitter, have taken stronger steps to discrediting false information, but there isn't really a clear way to block it as that begins to toy with First Amendment laws. 

Are Artificial intelligence Catfishing People?

Ryan Burg

rb620917@ohio.edu

 

Artificial intelligence has always been a part of technology and the internet to help serve human-like tasks to make them faster and easier from virus protection to self-driving cars, but now they are being used to manipulate people to help boost numbers for companies.

Artificial intelligence has been used to create fake profiles on social media platforms so people could gain more numbers for likes and followers, but now they are getting more involved in our day-to-day life. 

Some AI's can be programmed as text bots online. They learn from humans by studying how we communicate on media platforms and use it to their advantage. Their writing can be as simple as messaging someone to visit a site or as complex as writing an article and post it online

In a British Broadcasting Company interview, Noel Sharkey, a computer science professor at the University of Sheffield stated that "If the software worked as intended by Open AI, it would be a very useful tool for easily generating fake news and clickbait spam. Fortunately, in its present form, it generates incoherent and ridiculous text with little relation to the input 'headlines'."

If AI keep evolving and keep getting smarter, it can put out more realistic texts and can cause more confusion as to what news to trust or not, even though it's tough enough already.

Picture source: The Washington Post

If you think that's bad, it gets worse, AI firms are also creating and selling computer-generated images of "humans" to companies to create artificial models. They are used to show diversity within their company while also having the option to create the right shape and size so they can make their ad perfect they way they want it to look like. 

Forbes stated that "The Swedish fashion chain H&M admitted to using computer-generated models on its website after it was confronted and challenged about "uncanny similarities" with the models. In this case, the heads of real models were superimposed on the same body."

The company got plenty of backlash on this because of them showing off computer-generated body images to show off their product in the best way possible creating a false reality for customers while creating an unrealistic body image for women to live up to.

Artificial intelligence creating fake people started with computers generating people from the head to the shoulders. Now people are thinking soon enough they'll be doing full-body generations that you won't even realize from the naked eye.

This is a concern to marketing everywhere because it is unfair to show a "person" modeling for a company and not be human so the product could look the best possible. With AI's becoming more intelligent and evolving, they are taking away jobs for humans and making them their own.

A Tale of Two Parties: How Big Data is Polarizing the Country

Emmeline Adkins

ea107017@ohio.edu

 

Big Data, much like how it sounds, refers to massive amounts of data and information, which, due to today's technological capabilities, is growing larger every minute. However, according to the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Institute, "it's not the amount of data that's important...it's what organizations do with the data that matters." Nowadays, of course, organizations don't have to just mean companies looking to advertise to you, but it can also mean political candidates trying to sell themselves to you.

The problem with Big Data entering the political stage is not necessarily how much information campaign teams have on voters and their interests, but as the SAS Institute said, it's what they do with it. One might think politicians are doing something stereotypically slimy or conniving with the American people's information, but it's a bit more logical than that. The data collected on voters is turned into an advertisement of sorts, but instead of commercial breaks, you're being advertised to every time a politician opens their mouth. Now, politics and campaigns have always been this way, but we have never had politicians and campaign teams possessing this much data on voters in our history, which makes a big difference in how candidates conduct themselves now.

Before Big Data was there to provide the wants of every single American, candidates didn't know everything about their voters and created platforms based off of, generally, what it looked like America needed, what Americans told them they needed, and their own personal beliefs. Americans don't have to tell politicians what they need anymore, and the data being collected is more than Americans would have offered on their own as before. Now, platforms are precisely tailored to the data, which has become an issue as politicians have sought to appeal to more and more radical voters than ever before. In doing so, they have polarized the two party system so profoundly and almost consistently look over the moderates and centrists of their party.

During the 2020 Presidential Election, this was most prominent. One one hand, there was the Democratic Party candidate, Joe Biden, who could not state for sure what his plans were for the future of fracking and natural gas. He was too afraid to polarize his voters from Pennsylvania who receive economic benefits from the business, but too afraid to upset the progressive voters who back the Green New Deal and banning fracking. This created a sort of ambiguous climate platform for him where he would talk about not banning fracking yet he included the Green New Deal on his campaign website. Ultimately, this wasn't new information to progressive voters that Biden wasn't as progressive a politician as someone like Bernie Sanders, but it caused a distrust among the moderate Democrats and centrists.

Photo taken from BBC

On the other side of the political divide was Republican incumbent Donald Trump, who, when asked to outright condemn white supremacy on a national stage, could not without a shadow of a doubt do so. Why? It's a simple matter; he has the endorsement of the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, as well as other nationalist groups such as the Proud Boys, who he even told to "stand by." As former Republican Senator, Rick Santorum said (as quoted in The Atlantic), the moderator of the presidential debate, "was asking the president to do something he knows the president doesn't like to do, which is to say something bad about the people who support him."

The unfortunate effect that Big Data has on the American political stage is more and more candidates are neglecting the needs of moderates in favor of catering to the radicals--even catering to the radicals who are historically violent bigots, something most presidents before this time would not have dared to do in such a public manner. All this being said, there isn't much to do, exactly, about Big Data except to stay informed of how your information is being used to shape the country and even how it is actively being used, in some cases, against you.

Truth on TikTok

Lily Roby

lr158117@ohio.edu

 

One of the Internet's key aspects is that it is a space for anyone to clearly speak their mind and connect with others, no matter the location.

This is especially seen on social media, where groups are created and bring together communities that can have real world impacts. Freedom of speech is practically essential to social media, yet some apps such as TikTok have been found censoring material based on unethical standards.

In late 2019, users found that when they attempted to post videos discussing the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests, their videos would be censored. This means that videos would either be deleted or 'shadowbanned,' which is a term to describe when one's "posts on a platform are rendered essentially invisible to everyone but themselves," according to The New York Times.

Recently leaked documents show that TikTok did have policies in place for moderators to remove videos mentioning Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, or banned religious group Falun Gong. The policy also bans a list of 20 foreign or sensitive figures, including Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

TikTok claims to make these censorship decisions in order to minimize conflict on their platform, but some believe that these choices are made in order to further TikTok's Chinese parent-company ByteDance's political stances. President Donald Trump attempted to ban TikTok earlier this year, claiming with little evidence that the app is a national security concern because it gives "the Chinese government access to vast amounts of US citizens' data."

 

The TikTok app hosts around 500 million users internationally. Photo Credit: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic

TikTok's censorship of pictures and video could be considered unethical because it takes away a key element of social media, its freedom of speech. While some content should certainly be banned, videos of current protests shouldn't be banned because that simply eliminates coverage of current events and the spread of information.

The video-sharing app was also caught in another data leak, exposing that their moderation policies included not promoting videos of people deemed ugly, overweight, disabled or poor. In the leak, the policy states that videos where "the character's appearance or the shooting environment is not good, the video will be much less attractive, not worthing to be recommended to new users."

Banning people fitting in these categories this in order to gain more TikTok users and therefore more advertising revenue puts the interests of TikTok ahead of their people. TikTok as a company cannot claim to want to increase diversity, as they did in June, and then even go as far as to censor LGBTQ content in countries such as Bosnia, Jordan and Russia.

Journalists must work to fight censorship and unethical moderation. Social media apps that ban content according to companies' personal interests shape the minds of users and their perceptions of the world even if it is unintentional. Truth is what all media and news organizations should strive for.

Is Using Artificial Intelligence in Advertising actually championing diversity?

Mary Jane Sanese 

ms943920@ohio.edu

Throughout the years, media and advertising has been constantly changing, especially as new technology arises and becomes mainstream. If we watch commercials and advertisements from the 1950s, they will look extremely unrecognizable for the most part compared to our ads now. Journalist Jose Angelo Gallegos provides a fascinating timeline of The History and Evolution of Advertising. The internet and social media has changed the advertisement world. We no longer have just magazine, radio, or television advertisements. We have interactive ads and targeted ads that are handpicked for us by computers because of the websites we might have been browsing, or even the products we might have been discussing with our friends. The media and advertisement world is unrecognizable nowadays, compared to even just 20 years ago.

We know that advertisers are going to do whatever they can to get people to spend money on their product or whatever they are selling. That is the name of the game. This means companies are catering to the masses and their audiences. This also means that if there are going to be people in these advertisements, they need to represent the targeted consumers.  Forbes explains why and how diversity is good marketing in advertising. The bottom line is people are more likely to remember a commercial or feel emotionally dawn to it if they can personally identify with it. That is why advertisers have started using a more diverse population in their ads, instead of using all white people as they used to do. Using all white people in ads is not a an accurate depiction of our world, and it means that so many people are not able to identify with the media they are consuming, which means they are most likely not going to remember it or end up buying the product being marketed to them. It was not until recently that commercials started showing same sex marriages, or which says a lot about how far behind the media world is in terms of diversity. 

Photo courtesy of  ADWEEK and Getty Images

Another important reason for diversity in media and advertising is to provide jobs for a diverse group of people. Of course making sure that the consumers feel included and seen is so important. But, what happens if companies are starting to streamline the process of creating diverse media. What happens if instead they are using computer generated persons, or Artificial Intelligence to create people to be in advertisements and marketing campaigns. It's probably a cheaper option for the companies, and it saves them time as far as having to cast people and hire them. Not to mention, with COVID-19  creating so many limitations in regards to social distancing, using technology and AI would mean that these companies do not have to worry about all of these things. 

Will people truly be able to identify with a computer generated image or likeness of a person? Will they all end up looking similar? I believe one of those most beautiful things about humans is that we all have our own likeness and are unique. "Being yourself" is something so many companies use to identify with their consumers.  Using a computer generated image feels so counter-intuitive to that message. What if we would not even be able to tell the difference between a computer generated person and a real one? Will the company have to disclose they are not using real humans? 

At the end of the day, I know I want to support businesses that are honest and upfront about what they are doing and why. I have heard so many times that at some point in the future humans will lose out on jobs to computers. I really never expected that this would be happening in the world of media and advertising. 

VR and News Reporting: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Shel Burton 

sb800216@ohio.edu

 

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a science fiction novel. Tech-savvy homebodies stoke flames of dissent across the US from their couch, and life-like, computer-generated faces feature in advertisements and stock photos. Thanks to virtual reality (VR) gaming I can be stabbing zombies in NOLA while my roommate asks Alexa to order us Domino's. 

Sometimes I can't help but curl up into a ball and wonder "where does it stop? When do things go bad?" Being a college student, I consider myself pretty young. Not young enough to understand Roblox, but not old enough to remember the dial-up tone either. As technology continues to outpace legislation and--at times--human comprehension, I can't imagine no one else is asking these questions. 

One such group is journalists, who are so dependent on technology that a 2017 study showed that 66 percent of journalists engage with their readers through social media at least once a day. However, most journalists know how to engage with readers through social media and generally have a code of ethics to fall back on. When it comes to VR...not so much. 

 

Because of VR, news viewers could potentially experience the sights and sounds of events. In a society that covets experiences and immersive entertainment, no one can be blamed for wanting to tap into the possibilities of it all. However, with so much misinformation the combination of news and VR can feel like opening Pandora's box. After an election fraught with contradicting, conflicting, and incorrect news, you'd have every right to be wary of the potential dangers. 

An article from Medium.com discussed the ethics of virtual reality within journalism, especially, what rules would have to be in place to make it a viable form of news media. As usual, transparency is of the utmost importance. While VR may look and sound real, it isn't and journalists would have to be transparent about that and images within VR that are edited. They'd also have to decide when VR is appropriate. Today, some of our news stories are written and others can be watched online and on TV. The same would have to apply to VR. For example, most people wouldn't like to be in VR during a crime report. There's also something to be said about the emotional impact of VR, is it a tool to immerse the viewer in the news story to get a better understand of the situation or to emotionally manipulate them? 

VR is a powerful tool and with great power comes great responsibility. While the technology of tomorrow will inevitably become today's, I'm glad we're asking these questions now. 

The Truth About Drones

Carlee Swartz 

cs331016@ohio.edu

 

The people of this generation have had the privilege of watching technology grow quickly within a time span of just 20 years. From the first iPhone to flat-screen TVs, we have created a world where taking technology to the next level is a must in a demanding market. The product that has had tech-savvy consumers raving is the drone device. This device replicates a model airplane that can fly using a remote control. The different possible uses for this device have become endless after hitting the market for an affordable price. 

Drones have become a huge step in the right direction for new photography purposes. It's allowed photographers to get more precise and unique shots of scenery and animals which they wouldn't have before. They've also created a new way to deliver mail as different shipping companies have discussed using drones to deliver packages or mail for faster delivery. 

Picture source: Jordan Bowman, pixel/fit/getty/Getty Images/iStockphoto

With advancements in technology comes criticism and doubt from some consumers. Now that drones have the ability to film videos and take pictures while up in the air, there is the worry that there could be an invasion of privacy as well as unwanted surveillance. Now that the drones are available to the public at an affordable price, it will be easier for anyone to take videos of whatever they want without the permission of others. In this article, it mentions the laws that were created before and after the creation of drone devices. Although, many of these laws may vary from each different state. 

Most of the ethical laws you will read regarding drone usage are mostly common-sense, but unfortunately, these laws had to be stated due to others already making the mistake of doing them in the first place. There have already been numerous legal cases involving drones such as people walking their dogs with drones, injuries from drones, and much more. This article lists just a handful of incidents that have been caused due to drone fails. 

There have been many controversial conversations about whether drones should be available to anyone. In today's society, technology's intent is to create new and innovative ways to make our lives easier. The question is where to draw the line between innovative and safe to use. Until people can maintain the laws and recommendations by officials, the use of drones may continue to create disruption in our society.

Regulating Hate Speech on Social Media

Madeline Valentine

mv598217@ohio.edu

 

In a digital age, it is nearly impossible to not own or come across social media accounts. Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are increasingly becoming ways to keep in contact with friends and family as well as use as outreach for jobs. The reach of social media goes far and children are creating accounts at younger and younger ages. 

There is a reason the percentages of cyber-bullying has increased in recent years and the number of young adult depression.  It is easy for people to go online and say harmful words behind a screen of anonymity. Hate speech is also common to come across, a total of 64% of teens witnessing some sort of hate speech frequently in a study done in 2018. In that number, racism, sexism, and homophobia are the most common to the people of the survey. 

Picture source: Getty Images

So what are social media companies doing to regulate hate speech on their platforms? While it may seem easy to abolish this kind of harm, the problem for these platforms is distinguishing between hate speech and free speech. When making policy, they have to be careful they are not infringing on any kind of rights regarding the freedom of speech. An article done by research outreach states, "In order for this monitoring to take place, social media companies need to be transparent about the content that they are removing and make their data available to researchers and the wider public for scrutiny."

Many civil rights groups are calling for platforms like Facebook to do just this and claim that they are not active enough with dealing with hate speech problems on their sites. They have called on advertisers to boycott the platforms until these problems are better dealt with. AP news reported, "New companies have been signing on to the boycott almost every day. While some are pausing ads only on Facebook, others have also stepped back from advertising on Twitter and other platforms." Some of these advertisers include Unilever, Verizon and Ford, showing the impact the call to action is having. While this is not a long-term situation, it is still a move in the direction in combating hate speech. 

With pressure on these companies, hopefully, they will turn a bigger focus on these problems and work on their transparency as they combat hate speech in a fair manner.

How To Report On Racial Injustice

Brianna Smith

bs214517@ohio.edu 

The pandemic has magnified the problems that this country always had. The biggest thing that was brought into the light was a clear divide revolving around police violence and Black Lives Matter. The presidential race furthered this divide and made it even more political. Biden stands behind the BLM movement while Trump calls them a terrorist group. 

Throughout this year I've found myself questioning how our country is so divided. Was other people not seeing the same things I was seeing? I later found out the answer to that question is no . . . not really.

 

Left and Right wingers have their own media outlets, news channels, and social media algorithms. This means if you're a liberal, it's difficult to find information supporting conservatives and vice versa. For example, Tyler Fisher wrote a wonderful piece speaking on the Charlottesville protest that you can find here. 

Fisher's article shows how the left side and right reported on the same protest. The difference was telling. Both were very biased and one could even say misleading.

This brings us to the question, "how do journalist report on racial injustice correctly?". Rachael Glickhouse wrote about this in her piece titled "What We Discovered During a Year of Documenting Hate" (access here). Here she spoke on how most journalist don't even report their hate crime findings to the FBI. She said, "We were told early on that while the law required the Department of Justice to report hate crime statistics, local and state police departments aren’t bound to report their numbers to the FBI — and many don't".

She also reported on how many police officers don't even know how to handle hate crimes if they do end up reporting the incident.

This leads us to 5 things to remember while reporting on racial injustice.

1.  Make sure you're not using misleading titles and promoting false narratives

2. Include all details given to ensure personal bias is not shining through your piece.

3. ALWAYS report the hate crimes you speak on to the FBI

4. Remember you're writing on a sensitive topic and that kind language will always be appreciated 

5. Stick to your ethical code regardless of what's being asked of you

Reporting on hate crimes will always be scary due to how important it is. But like I said its so, so, important! Use the media to help spread the unbiased truth for once. Peoples life are literally depending on it!

Protecting Differences Online

Alli B. Westbrook

aw263116@ohio.edu

Does "www" stand for "World Wide Web" or "Wild Wild West" because on some days it is difficult to tell the difference. The internet is a seemingly lawless place that everybody roams. It is home to many unsavory characters who take advantage of their freedom of expression to make life harder for others who they consider outside the norm. Hate speech is an extremely pervasive issue that has rooted itself deep within internet culture. 

The internet shares the same first amendment protections as press. But when discussing policy there are distinct differences between the internet and traditional media that are not typically taken into account. Those differences are centered around the internet's ability to amplify messages to mass audiences in a way that has never been seen before while also targeting individuals on a personal level. This, paired with its accessibility and ease makes it both an empowering and suppressive force. 

The internet is now a place that traditional forms of media call home. Which means that traditional codes of ethics are finding their way onto new platforms. But, when policy fails ethics can only do so much. Especially considering only media professionals are directly educated on the importance of ethical codes. There needs to be a national movement that focuses on media literacy. This movement should have a campaign that directly targets hate speech through the use of codes of ethics. Similarly to how children learn about bullying in elementary, hate speech needs to be confronted. 

When we are young, we are told not to bully. When we become teenagers we begin forming our identity. At the same time we gain more autonomy and freedom over our online presence. This all occurs without a consistent message or code to guide us. Through exploration many become exposed to toxic images and rhetoric. Bullying does not cut it anymore, it needs to be named for what it is, Hate speech. 

Hate speech has contributed to some of America's worst atrocities. In 2019 the El Paso shooter posted hate speech on social media shortly before committing a mass shooting targeting people of Mexican ethnicity. Unlike the El Paso shooter, many are embolden by anonymity. The American Civil Liberties Union notes that anonymity is a fundamental component of our right to free speech. The Supreme Court stated in McIntyre V. Ohio Elections Commission that "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority (ACLU, 2020). 

In many cases the lines blur and it seems as if hate speech is being being protected instead of free speech. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg committed to leaving potentially harmful content on its platform even if it goes against individual standards as long as Facebook deems it newsworthy (Marcy Gordon, 2019). Which once again illustrates the need for a standard of ethics. 

A national movement against hate speech and for greater media literacy would increase the safety of public spaces and the quality of life for many Americans. Policy will one day catch up and we may see stricter regulations against this insidious issue that affects the mental health and physical well being of many.

                                                        @ADL "Fighting hate for good"

• States (including D.C.) with comprehensive hate crime laws that cover: race, religion, ethnicity/ national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
• States without comprehensive hate crimes laws.
• States with no hate crimes laws.

The Rise of Hate Crimes and Speech in American: Can We Be Progressive While History Repeats Itself?

Jaelyn R. Smith 

js105916@ohio.edu

Hate crimes and hate speech are detrimental to a well-functioning democracy. America’s democracy inhabits a society that is increasingly evolving into a more diverse demographic makeup. This being said, it is the individuals who produce such diversity, that are becoming victims of violence, words, and other various actions rooted in hate, privilege, and power.

We have seen oppressive ideologies existing as a reality throughout history: The enslavement of African Americans from the time of America’s founding in 1776, until the 13th amendment passed in 1865. Even so, African American’s and all people of color continues to face a tremendous amount of prejudice. The Trail of Tears forced Native Americans out of their home and to relocate by walking over 5,043 miles, across nine states. Police raiding LGBTQ+ bars and overall police brutality towards the community in Greenwich Village, New York City, resulted in the Stonewall riots. Sadly, history has begun to repeat itself. 

 

Hate crimes and hate speech have increased with an alarming velocity since 2016. Parts of the public believe this to be true, others believe it just receives more attention, but there is a margin of individuals who can see it as both. Meaning, it is talked about more because it occurs more. 

According to the Department of Justice, hate crime incidents in 2019 included 7,103 single biased incidents, involving 8,552 victims. Bias motivation categories for single bias incidents were: 57.6 percent race, ethnicity, or ancestry, 20.1 percent religion, 16.7 percent sexual orientation, 2.7 percent gender identity, 2 percent disability, and .9 percent gender. Knowing these biases, there were 211 multiple biased incidents that occurred, involving 260 victims. 

Picture source: Silence Hides Violence Foundation 

 

Katia Campbell gave a TedTalk called The Freedom of Hate Speech: A Call for Civil Disorder, at Metropolitan State University of Denver. She described how herself, her family, and her community had been victimized by hate within society. Her father was the first black architect in the small town that they lived in. Local Ku Klux Klan member terrorized him, his family and their community. Injustice was realized and the community did not back down. They took turns escorting her father and watching over her family’s home. In light of those experiences, her eyes were opened, thus she has identified a reappearance of hateful ideologies and political leaders giving those ideologies a platform for legitimacy; because of that, it is once again time to fight back. 

 

In order to effectively do so, it is important to first understand one of the main justifications for free speech. Justifications revolve around the market place of ideal theory, commonly discussed by John Stuart Mills. This theory suggested that society acted as an open market for sharing ideas until the truth was found. Ancient Greeks were some of the earliest teachers of rhetoric; because persuasions and arguments were imperative for a society to function, they said, “truth comes from the clash of arguments.” As Campbell noted this, she reminded that this simple phrase is of the upmost importance because it says “arguments,” not ill-informed opinions. 

While none of this is advocating for censorship, it does advocate for the American duty of fully understanding the first amendment. In turn, it should be known that the first amendment within itself holds responsibilities, as well as consequences. Hate speech and hate crimes are unacceptable within a society that claims to be progressive. This is why participation in national awareness like National Hate Crime Week and events like marches, protests, sit-ins, and petitioning are imperative right now. American democracy should aim to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, that is impossible with excuses being made in instances of hate. In the end, speech and crimes will not only hurt people and property, but society as a whole.