Twitter Clips vs The Truth: Should We Really Be Trusting Viral Videos?

Nicholas Snider

sniderwx@gmail.com

Back in 2019 during the March for Life, a viral video arose from Twitter. This video showed a Catholic high school student Nick Sandmann, wearing a MAGA hat, and smirking at a Native American elder. The elder was banging a drum and chanting right up next to Sandman. Initially, the reaction was swift, with Sandmann being portrayed as a racist for the arrogant look on his face while the drum was being banged. Many news outlets ran with that story, resulting in threats to both Sandmann and Covington Catholic High School. However, that short video failed to tell the whole story. Eventually, an almost 2-hour long video surfaced, showing events leading up to the altercation. In the clip, it showed the students being berated by a group of protestors from a different march. The students decided to sing school chants, drowning out the noise leading up to those events. Sandmann claims he was trying to defuse the situation, while Phillips, the Native elder, defends his position.

Ian Bogost, a writer for The Atlantic, describes how neither video will ever tell the whole story. in his piece Stop Trusting Viral Videos, He states "About a century ago, the Soviet formalist filmmaker Lev Kuleshov conducted a series of experiments with filmic montage. In the most famous one, he edited a short film consisting of short clips of various subjects: an actor’s expressionless face, a bowl of soup, a woman on a couch, a girl in a coffin. The same clips edited into different sequences produced different interpretive results in the viewer." He then goes on to talk about how each video from a different angle may have provoked different responses "Consider a change in framing or editing instead: Had the original clip been shot from the reverse angle, showing Sandmann and his classmates from the back, his MAGA hat visible but not his smirk, the meaning of the situation would have also changed. No longer does the student represent the worst stereotype of white intolerance, but now he becomes a mere prop for Phillips, whose drumming reads as both pacifist in its delivery and reception."

Picture source:  https://www.istockphoto.com/videos/viral-video?phrase=viral%20video&sort=mostpopular

I agree with what Mr. Bogost is saying here. While Sandmann's testification of it being taken out of context may be partly true, there are many other ways the other groups could've interpreted the situation. The events after the actual altercation were horrible, with unnecessary death threats and smearing of Sandmann's name across media platforms occurred. The Sandmanns eventually ended up winning a lawsuit over the controversy. At the end of the day, journalists and other social media users alike should wait for full details to come out on short clips like this before making judgements. It could end up saving the organization millions of dollars for one, or simply allow the people of our country to become more united from all the current division going on

The Truth About Body Image Cannot Be Photoshopped

Mady Nutter

mn830117@ohio.edu

madelynnenutter@gmail.com

The question of ethics in utilizing image editing software like Photoshop not only has a direct impact on journalism, but on the very health and wellness of every individual that consumes media. In the realm of media, I have found the SPJ Code of Ethics guidelines of "minimize harm" and "seek truth" to be extremely relevant when it comes to the issue of photo editing.

Many debates over the link between Photoshop usage and body image issues — as well as the potential harm this link may cause for young girls seeing women's bodies heavily retouched with editing such as Photoshop — were prevalently taking place around a decade ago. 

As someone who was in this demographic of young girls a decade ago, I find it very interesting to reflect on how these ethics guidelines I have learned today apply to past conversations and lectures I encountered on body image and Photoshop use.

Photo editing can significantly alter a celebrity's appearance even cover by cover, photo source: The New York Times

In 2011, the American Medical Association board released a statement on the harm posed to young people when they view advertisements showcasing edited images which display unrealistic and dangerous body image expectations. 

One AMA board member, Dr. Barbara L. McAneny, said, "We must stop exposing impressionable children and teenagers to advertisements portraying models with body types only attainable with the help of photo editing software."

While it seems that this statement by the AMA has since been removed from their official website, I think it is still noteworthy that they once made a statement such as this at all. Upon my current reflection, the board's efforts seem to be rooted in ethical guidelines similar to "minimize harm" and "seek truth."

The AMA had a genuine concern about the impact of people's edited and enhanced bodies in media having a negative effect on children's body image, which had the potential to cause other health concerns. By discouraging the use of photo editing, I see a clear connection to the guideline of "seek truth," and in the board's fear of negative health effects on children, I see a connection to the guideline of "minimize harm" present in their statement.

In recent years, the clothing line Aerie, which is a sub-brand of American Eagle Outfitters, has contrasted the prevalent usage of model retouching and Photoshop use with their #AerieReal campaign. The social movement for "body positivity" has greatly coincided with campaigns such as Aerie's, which I believe is much more rooted in truth and harm minimization than the normalization of Photoshop usage in media. 

In an analysis by Forbes, contributor Shelley E. Kohan said, "Aerie has redefined the standards of beauty by encouraging young women to love their own bodies. The brand has struck a chord with today's consumers who value social responsibility, body positivity, inclusion and a community that supports each other."

The images we see in media can have a direct impact on our lives and how we view ourselves. The ethical guidelines of "minimize harm" and "seek truth" can affect us all not only in our journalistic pursuits but in the media we consumer that impacts our personal lives.

The Ethics of Publishing Images that Perpetuate a False Reality

Lauren McCain

 

 

 

While the world of technology continues to make large advances every day with the intention of further advancing the lives of humans, this progress can also occasionally create unintentional obstacles that make certain aspects of everyday life more difficult. 

In today's society, an unexpected challenge that has arisen as a result of increasing technological advancements in photo editing has been attempting to distinguish between real life and a world created in the narrative of media outlets. A world where women are hairless and thin, marriages are perfect, sheep are a cartoon shade of white, and every shot is a perfect shot. Photo manipulation is not new to the medium (see below for photos of Joseph Stalin famously airbrushing out his enemies as they fell out of grace with him).

The issue today is that new technologies allow for nearly seamless and undetectable photo manipulation that can quickly be spread to a massive audience in a matter of seconds. 

Whether an image is spreading unrealistic body expectations or complete misinformation by way of a doctored image, regardless, viewers are being fed a false version of reality. So, what hand do journalists have in this?

An increasingly prominent debate in recent years concerning journalists has been: where should publications draw the line at doctoring/editing photos for publishing? Altering the public's view of reality without their consent cannot possibly qualify as "gathering facts and reporting them", but when is it taken too far?

Associated Press's ethics code for photojournalists allows for minor adjustments, like cropping and adjusting the color of an image for necessary clarity and accuracy, but does not allow any type of editing that changes "the authentic nature of the photograph". They also do not allow for any staging of captured images, and when photos are taken in a studio, "care should be taken to avoid misleading viewers to believe that the moment was spontaneously captured in the course of gathering the news." 

Unfortunately, not every outlet has taken such measures concerning the integrity of their published images. Just this past June, Fox News came under fire for publishing digitally altered and misleading photos about the Seattle demonstrations. One image published by the network showed a digitally inserted man armed with an assault rifle, furthering the network's personal narrative of violent, out of hand "terrorists" that were wreaking havoc on the city. When called into question by The Seattle Times, Fox News removed the images, but how much damage was done before the images were removed?

The overarching point is this: the world cannot simply exist as an ideal medium for furthering an individual company's narrative. Tampering with the public's perception of the world by feeding them false realities is not the job of a journalist with integrity, especially in a time where "fake news" dominates and facts and truth-telling are vital. 

A clear ethical line needs to be drawn by publications and journalists to separate altering minor inconveniences in a photo for the purpose of increasing clarity, versus altering an entire reality captured in a photograph.

Viral Does not Always Mean True

Jacob Motta

jm186818@ohio.edu

 

In America, we tend to take anything we see on the internet as true, no matter what the circumstances are. The main way most young people get their news is through social media apps, the main one, being Twitter. 

We see viral videos, and viral photos every day, and share them with our friends and family. People in society do not research these pictures or videos before sharing them because most think, well if it is on the internet, it has to be true. The issue with this is that oftentimes there are multiple videos or pictures from the same event, that tell a completely different story. 

In an article published by The Atlantic on the Nick Sandmann case, the author talks about the short viral video, which showed a group of high schoolers at a March for Life event in Washington, D.C., and one student wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat is portrayed to be, "Intimidating the tribal elder in the original video" referring to a group of Native Americans. Everyone had assumed that the high school junior was mocking an elder from the tribe that had seen the video, because that is the only context that was shown by news, and media organizations. If the entire video had been shown, people would have seen that the boy had slurs shouted at him because of the hat that he was wearing, and in another video that shows more of the altercation, it does not seem as if he is smirking at the elder in order to disrespect him. 

The point is not to say who is right and who is wrong, the point is that a situation like this can be twisted and turned into multiple different stories in order to manipulate people into believing something. We as American people should double check the news that we decide to spread, and always use trusted, unbiased organizations to figure out what is right. 

In an article published by Pew Research Center it reads, "A Median of only 52% across the 38 nations polled say the news media in their county do a good job of reporting on political issues fairly, while 44% say they do not." While the issue is not only with political news, it is still a big part of the, "fake", or biased news that is presented to the American people. 

Society needs to learn that not everything you read on the internet is true, and that whether the news is political, informational, or just for pure entertainment, it can be biased or fake. Viral videos and photos plague the American people with information that is false or misinterpreted, and that divides us as a society. It makes us turn against each other, and sometimes it can make us turn against even the people that we care about the most. Checking unbiased organizations can fix many social media altercations, as well as, in person altercations between people who just don't have the full story.   

The Problem with Photoshop for Journalists

Will Price

wpriceou@gmail  

 

The use of photos is vital to our jobs in the media. They can reinforce the story at hand and bring a certain level of truth that words cannot with the audience. That being said, in the social media age, many photos can be manipulated and mislead the audience. As journalists, it is important that we are incredibly diligent when coming across viral media and investigate any photos or media we may use from another source. When editing our own photos, we must be careful to not change the photo in a way that significantly changes it's meaning, just like any information we come across and report out. 

 Photo editing technology has been around for the years and can be used as a tool to touch up photos and remove small blemishes. However, it can also be used to change the nature of the photo, undermining the use of the software and now undermining our credibility as journalists with our audience. One prominent example of this was a cover for The Economist magazine featuring a story about Barack Obama following the BP oil spill disaster. The cover edits out two people the former president was standing with on a pier, causing him to look more isolated and alone on the cover. This is a somewhat small change to the picture but can have a much different subtext to the eye of the reader. 

Newsrooms need to be thoughtful about how they present photos to the general public and how any potential changes to the photos, whether it be digitally enhancing something, or removing it, or cropping the photo, all are important changes and need to be handled with care. Deputy editor of The Economist at the time, Emma Duncan, said she edited out the woman to the right because her presence could be "puzzling to the reader." Still, the image of Obama looking defeated during an ongoing national crisis can send a message to the people that the original photo did not contain.

Picture source: New York Times

With the rise of available photo-editing technology, misleading photoshops are becoming more and more common and can spread dangerously like wildfire on some social media platforms. Journalists should always proceed with caution when encountering this media and verify it like we would any information for a story or report. When editing a photo, we must always consider the consequences of any alterations made to our photos, and be sure we are not altering the photo in a harmful way to any of the potential stakeholders involved in the story.

A Picture's Worth a Thousand Likes

Andrea Robinson

ar195815@ohio.edu

 

Sure, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but are we finding more value in its likability? It seems to be that viral pictures or more likable ones are most important in today's culture. What if this means we are giving up some of the truth? 

Picture source: https://9gag.com/gag/aGZwooZ

Depending on the camera angle, I guess you could say Prince William "flipping the bird" in a crowd is fake news. Without the photo on the right, whose to say it isn't. 

Don't get me wrong; photography is essential to news, especially when it comes to be proof of an event. A picture becomes an eye-witness with the click of a camera. Photographs get to describe history in ways that words can't. 

The power a single photo can possess is potentially dangerous. It has full control to shape the reality of its viewer. 

In a blog post written by Laura Curtis, she discusses how news photographs construct reality. Curtis says this is partially because photojournalist only capture a small moment in time, but not the scene in its entirety.

Not physically being in the moment makes it hard to understand the truth, so we rely on the photos to tell us what is going on. Having only that one small moment, is like only reading one chapter of a book. There's way more to the story, and I'm sure it's way more than a thousand words. 

"They (photojournalist) try to visually report the realities that reflect the place they are in, but all photographs are in some way altered, in most cases this comes down to a simple cropping go the image". 

Picture source: https://noonecares.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/media-manipulation-004.jpg

Most photos hold some truth...but not the whole truth.

It may be deceptive and naive to believe most of the images that are frequently present in the news and social media are always going to be the whole reality. We are not always being shown the bigger picture (literally). 

Sometimes more harsher offenses than cropping a photo happen in photography. 

In 1994, TIME Magazine had an altered image of O.J. Simpson on the cover. It was a darken version of Simpson's mug shot. This issue was published in the midst of the widely covered murder trial. Another magazine, Newsweek, also blasted newsstands with the same notorious mug shot, but seemed to leave the photo untouched. 

Picture source: https://people.southwestern.edu/~bednarb/su_netWorks/projects/enyioha/O.J.Simpson.html

TIME received a lot of push back and many deemed the cover to be distasteful. This triggered backlash due to racism. 

"Some anecdotal evidence suggest that whites have particularly negative stereotypes about darker-skinned blacks, such as the darkening of O.J. Simpson's face". 

Other critics thought that the image was darkened to make him seem evil to further reinforce the lack of favorability toward black people. 

Many photos are framed in certain ways to accumulate the most reaction or even the most likes. It's hard to know where to begin with reality when so very little of it is being shown. 

How can we make our own thoughts when we are unsure what reality to believe? As humans, are we too gullible to look past the more appealing or alluring photos? 

False Information Within News

Kayla Ramsey 

kr060616@ohio.edu

Since the independence of U.S., people have always consumed news. Whether it be politics, entertainment, local, or current events, journalism is rooted into the heart of our culture. Over the past few decades, mainstream media has shifted to almost all online. Online media can be a great tool for sharing content with other people around the world, but it can also be a place that has the potential to easily spread false information. 

Unfortunately, false information posted on the internet, also called "fake news", is growing exponentially, and it is getting harder and harder for readers to distinguish between factual journalism and fake news. When compared to the 1950's, when most Americans chose to receive news from newspapers and radios, there was little room for fake news. Information went through a rigorous editorial process before it was nationally broadcasted or published. In 2020, and since the early 2000's media has not been regulated as much as printed and broadcasted news. This is due to the fact that online media is relatively new. It is vital that the readers taking in the content on the internet read and share factual information. Fake news can cause many problems and can endure unnecessary panic. Fake news can also be tied to internet scammers who prey on the elderly in hopes to gain banking and other personal information. 

Photo source: BBC

The Chicago Tribune explains that social media is exceptional at spreading false information. With the very little regulations set in place for social media in the United States, we can't expect this wildfire to be contained anytime soon. 

In this day, one should be aware of the content they read or watch. Even large news corporations can produce content filled biased opinions or opinion pieces that are not labeled as such. 

I think that false information is very commonly spread in today's society and people should educate themselves on how to spot fake news, and what they can do to stop the spread of misinformation. 

After Stanford University studied fake news, they compared it to a literal virus, impeding on people's mind and cognitive thoughts. Stanford claims they "want to find a way to cut transmission chains" but it is hard to even begin thinking about how to cut transmissions when the suggested culprit, social media, is always surrounding us. From now on we must expect fake news in our Facebook feeds and on our Instagram stories, but we need to know how to fact check accordingly to prove what is real and what is not.

Social Media's Frankenstein

Colin Murnan 

colin.murnan@gmail.com

 

It's no secret that social media has played a huge role in the world's cultural revolutions in recent years. With the rise of platforms like Twitter and Facebook, it's easier than ever to get a glimpse into what's happening not only in your own country but also across other continents. 

It seems almost utopian to think that we could have this kind of information at our fingertips, able to see people getting mistreated and having justice swiftly and immediately taken to correct unjust actions. 

We've seen this with the video of George Floyd, where thousands of Twitter users reposted, re-shared and have given an eyewitness account of gross misconduct committed by a police officer. 

Videos like this have impacted society and may even have led to the movement happening now, in which Black Lives Matter protestors march nationwide, chanting the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, among others. 

But questions arise as the power of social media continues to grow. Can we trust everything we see on social media, even if at first it looks believable? 

Social media videos are often short, rarely over two minutes. Even snippets as long as this aren't enough to gain accurate context for any given situation, so the casual onlooker will shift whatever they see into their own biases. 

 Picture source: https://professorramos.blog/2018/08/10/social-media-a-monster/ 

And that's not the only problem. 

A Harvard student creating a "hot or not" site has now engineered a political Frankenstein capable of swaying elections by foreign interference. Mark Zuckerberg may now be one of the social media kings vested with the power to censor the president if he sends out a social media victory celebration too early. 

How in the world did we get here?

Doctored photos, edited videos and sensationalist journalism has been around for decades, and now things are showing no signs of slowing, as unregulated tweets are being shot out at millions of followers at a time from some of the world's most influential people. It's a little frightening to find out that this all may literally be available inside your brain at some point as well. 

How, then, do you regulate this kind of flow of news? How do you inform people of "real" news when they're being force-fed fifty different versions of it? 

Gone are the days when citizens of the United States only had three nightly news stations to pick from. It seems far too late to try to turn back now, amidst the frenzy of news platforms now screaming for your attention. Maybe, then, it falls onto the individual. Those in authoritarian or military regimes sometimes don't have the luxury of receiving accurate news, so often they have to dig for information, talk to others, collaborate and find some semblance of truth. 

This could be a solution in the United States. An active, curious mind, capable of sifting through questionable news, matching biases against one another, collaborating with others to find out what happened -- this might be the future of news in the United States, where everyone has a kind of journalistic approach to how they see the world. 

We're All Too Airbrushed: Performative self-image vs Real self-image

Hannah Pridemore

hp138016@ohio.edu

As someone who has grown up with Instagram, I'm no stranger to photo editing. While I've never altered the pictures that I post, I have played with the tools and it's quite frankly easier than it should be to make yourself look like a brand new person. 

This doesn't mean that I post just any picture to my Instagram. Oh no, I make sure I have the perfect angle, my curls look amazing, my nose and jawline look sharp and smooth and I'm not holding any part of my body in a weird way. I might not edit my photos manually, but I can't say that the pictures I post can be considered completely natural.

I can look like the girl in the pictures I post, but I don't look like her every second of every day. It's a relative and slightly undetectable deception that you can only really pick up if you spend a lot of time with me. This is what I want to discuss here: the performative self-image, absolutely nothing like the real-self in media, socially and journalistically.

Picture source: Paper

 

James Welsh, a British youtuber best known for his skincare videos, has a running series on his channel called Instagram VS Reality. He worked in photo advertisement before starting his YouTube career and he uses what he knows to show how influencers and celebrities have altered their photos and videos (even when they claim they haven't). They're well worth the watch and very informative without being judgy.

It's no secret that women's magazines have edited the ever-loving life out of every woman they put in them. This is just a fact that has come with some rough consequences. We're still dealing with the fallout of body image issues that Photoshop has created, and this article from The Huffington Post from 2011 is still relevant now in 2020. 

I will never forget the day I saw this photoshoot of Christina Aguilera for Paper. I didn't recognize her at all as she looked completely different from every other photo that I had seen of her. Her true self (at least what they're promoting as her true self) looked absolutely nothing like the image media had given me and it was startling. 

What we need is a nice and messy grunge era to wipe away all of the airbrushing and perfecting that the last 10 or so years of media has created. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to look great, but that shouldn't be the default in every situation.

What we see on our screens and in magazines should be a reflection of reality, not the other way around.

The danger in photo manipulation

Michael Roth

michaeljoroth@gmail.com

 

A long time ago, seeing was believing for observers of journalism. When you were able to find photographic evidence of an event, it was believed to be the truth.

Today, with applications like Photoshop and other editing systems it is incredibly easy to create a fake image that holds zero truth at all to it.

Novices like me or you can change simple photos to make things look slightly different to tell a different story. I could add a basketball, change a line on a field and plenty of other simple changes.

Experts can create what is called 'deep fakes' which are serious manipulation that hold zero truth at all and create images or videos that appear incredibly real, yet hold no truth at all.

These editing systems are incredibly powerful and if put into the wrong hands, can completely falsify images and videos and cause confusion for their audiences.

Picture source : Awful Announcing

                                                                  

Sports are commonly used for doctored images to try and quickly fool sports fans. This photo here is from Awful Announcing and shows that somebody made a fake ESPN page to trick fans into thinking that the Washington Football Team (literally named) decided to change their name from Redskins to Redhawks. This turned out to be false and ESPN never ran such story, but this screen-shot makes it appear so.

Another commonly used trick used on twitter is when a random person changes their name to a sports reporter, switches their profile picture to that reporter and posts believable but false news. @docmccockiner is famous for tricking reporters such as Scripps graduate Peter King by portraying himself as Ian Rappaport, an NFL Network reporter. This article, shows King getting duped by fake Antonio Brown news where he was falsely quoted by saying "I don't listen to no Trump supporters."

Fake photos and videos are not the only types of visual media that journalists must question before using. Newsrooms have very difficult ethical decisions to make when deciding to release graphic, yet very real, photos. In the Nieman reports article, Gary Knight is quoted as saying "If you’re performing that role as a photographer or journalist, as some sort of witness or commentator, I think you need to record those things. But I don’t think that they need to be published." The question on whether to publish these graphic images is one producers must answer constantly, when reporting on stories of death and destruction.

Staged Video and Photos in Journalism

Kayla McLeod

km891517@ohio.edu

 

A photo or video can often make a story. 

In an age where media is readily available and consumers' attention spans become shorter and shorter, sometimes a photo associated with an article can be the only thing a reader pays attention to. The media associated with an article can absolutely mean more than the article itself. 

Of course, there is the problem of Photoshop and manipulating photos and editing videos of live events to make something seem different. However, another huge problem in the journalism world, some may argue, is staging photos or videos. This can make an entire event happen that did not even remotely happen. 

A way that journalists can take this to the extreme, in my opinion, is staging scenes in documentaries. Since documentaries are advertised as documenting a real story, they should be just as happened. Often, though, documentary filmmakers will stage scenes to make the content better. This happens especially with nature documentaries. 

Depicting events that did not happen in news articles is obviously unethical. However, even though documentaries can be considered a form of journalism, documentary filmmakers are not held to the same standards as journalists. 

A perfect example of this is the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore. In the film Manufacturing Dissent: Uncovering Michael Moore it's unveiled that the famous liberal documentary maker staged or used deliberate editing to manipulate the story. 

Picture source: Hbomax.com

                                                                       

Even though the documentary revealing these lies is well sourced and tells valuable info about Moore's credibility, it received a lot of bad reviews. Many say that even though he staged a few scenes for dramatics, it got the documentary into the mainstream and informed people about important political issues. 

This is why journalists and documentary makers alike probably manipulate photos. They are hoping that their readership or viewership skyrocket. But shouldn't the truth be more important? Somehow, it seems Michael Moore has gotten away with it.

The Dangers of Photoshopping in Journalism

Erin McLaughlin

em054617@ohio.edu

 

Photographs in journalism can play an important role in the storytelling process. They can provide readers with a glimpse into what the article or magazine is about or portray the story in a way that words cannot. 

However, Photoshop tools and techniques have become so advanced that they can completely manipulate photos into something that they are not. 

This can be harmful to readers especially in the age of social media. A photoshopped image can be shared and re-posted so many times that people could start to believe that it is true. 

This is damaging to the news cycle because according to the SPJ Code of Ethics, journalists have the responsibility to 'seek truth and report it.' This task becomes almost impossible to do if extremely photoshopped and manipulated images are being spread online via social media. 

Emma González, a young activist from Parkland, Florida was featured in Teen Vogue Magazine ripping a gun target poster in half. The purpose of the photograph was to support March For Our Lives and the #NeverAgain movement that was founded by students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to advocate for gun control. 

Picture source: New York Magazine

Not long after the story was posted, a website edited the photo to show her ripping the United States Constitution and posted it to Twitter. People on the opposing side of the argument, used the manipulated photo to further their idea that stricter gun laws would violate their second amendment right. 

According to a CNN article, the article was shared or liked on various social media platforms over one thousand times. 

This is just one example of the negative effects that extreme photoshopping can have on not only the readers but the original publication as well. 

Although photoshopping can completely alter the original message of the photograph, there is a way for the tool to be used in an ethical way. For example, photographers might use Photoshop to brighten an image or blur someone's face that did not want to be in the photo. 

The photoshopping tool is still a relatively new aspect of the news reporting process. As a result of this, it could be hard for journalists to know the ethics behind it. Because of this, it is important for journalists to always be transparent with their audience. They can do this by letting them know if they did use any type of photoshop, and if they did what they used and how. 

Controversial Photos and Ethics

Larissa Beriswill

lb657516@ohio.edu 

 

When tragedy strikes, there is always coverage of it. Whether it be the aftermath of a mass shooting or something as specific as the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The articles written about tragic and fatal events more often than not contain pictures. With 9/11 for example, there are many pictures that show people in mid-air because they jumped from the windows so they wouldn't burn to death. How are the reporters and editors supposed to know whether or not to attach these images?

It's a question that is asked about photos that will spark something in society, causing people to be angry that it was ever published in the first place. Journalists have a duty to society to report things like tragic events, where the public wants to see pictures. Pictures in articles help readers to understand the feelings of the event or the situation. Stated in the NPPA Code of Ethics, "Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime and tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see." 

Picture source:  https://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/common/viewphoto.php?id=54971

Opinions about controversial photos in journalism are different across the board. The common theme seems to be that a photo should be judged based on the event or situation. For example, a picture of a pile of deceased bodies from 9/11 would be something that is touchy for readers and would probably upset many people. However, the various photos of people jumping from the building seems to be less of an argument. The fact that is shows someone seconds before their death sends a strong message to the public about how severe and sad the terrorist attacks were that day. 

Additionally, there have been many photographers that have faced backlash from society on controversial pictures and what they did or did not to help. In this article from WBUR and the New York Post, R. Umar Abbasi photographed a man that was pushed onto tracks of the subway and was fatally struck by the train seconds later. The photographer received lots of criticism for the picture but his response was that he was "too far away to help". He later says that he heard commotion and just started taking pictures before he realized what he was capturing. He was rushing to help the man, but the train was too fast and no one else had acted soon enough to help the man, Ki Suk Han. 

It makes sense when you know the backstory, but seeing that picture with no explanation makes you question why no one helped the man. It's a perfect example of how a picture can have so much controversy without knowing the full story behind it. The photo did not show a deceased person, but it was inevitable what was bound to happen because subway trains do not stop like a car does. 

 

Social Media Influencers' Effect on Body Positivity

Delaney Ruth

delaneyruth18@gmail.com

 

In this day and age, we consume pictures and videos on the internet every day. When we see a picture or video, we tend to believe it is the absolute truth and that it has not been manipulated, but this is not always true. People today don't realize how easy it is to change a photo in Photoshop or take a video out of context and post it on Twitter. It happens far too often, and it can be hard to tell when an image or video if manipulated.

When I think of manipulated images, I immediately think of social media influencers that change their bodies or faces on apps to make themselves look better. Not only is this unethical, but it can be detrimental to young boys and girls that look at these images. They see an image of someone who is famous on Instagram and believe that they must look like that to be beautiful and successful. In an article the BBC wrote about how many women compare their bodies negatively to celebrities. It's scary to think about all the young adults that have an unhealthy relationship with their bodies because all they see on social media are people who look perfect. They don't realize that this is not reality; this is not what the majority of people look like.

Picture source: Reddit

An example of this is Madison Beer. Beer constantly speaks out about how she doesn't edit or body and how she has not had any plastic surgery, but when you look at photos of her from a few years ago, it is clear she has altered her looks a bit. The above picture shows Beer in two different images in the same day: one she posted on social media and one taken while she was being interviewed. It is clear that Beer posed herself and possibly edited the picture to make her look skinnier and tanner.

Picture source: Instagram

The good thing is, not all social media influencers edit their bodies or try to make themselves look perfect. A good example of this is HGTV's Good Bones star Mina Starsiak. Starsiak recently had a baby and candidly showed postpartum photos of herself just six days after giving birth. She first shows a photo of herself posed to look like she has no post-baby belly. In the next photos, she shows what her stomach really looks like. Starsiak is even wearing an adult diaper in the photos to show what it is truly like to have a baby and how your body reacts. She shows that it is okay to not be skinny and perfect all the time. 

It is easy to see how young people can be affected by social media and altered videos and images, but also know that not every person on Instagram is trying to be perfect at all times. There are so many social media influencers that can have a positive effect on today's youth, like the 33 Instagram accounts published in this Insider article.

While it can be hard to navigate social media without feeling negative, just know that not everyone tries to be perfect all the time. It is okay to have flaws. Be proud of your body and all that it does for you.

Photoshop in the Fashion Industry

Ellie Roberto 

ecroberto22@gmail.com 

 

We've all seen horribly funny Photoshop jobs, in which a model's arms are missing or their body proportions aren't quite right. These types of Photoshop fails are easy to spot because they are unrealistic, but what about the ones that go unnoticed? 

Picture source: Cosmopolitan

Photo and video editing technology has become so advanced that the average eye can't tell whether a picture is Photoshop-ed or not. However, when flipping through Vogue, most people are aware of the fact that most of the models they see are edited. 

The first programs for digital manipulation came out in the early 1990s and for art purposes, were intended to create futuristic images like those in special effects movies. At this time, people thought the perfectness of these models was interesting and different. 

“We were trying to create a future fashion. You could do something that looked gritty and real or something that looked like plastic," Art Director Lee Swillingham said. 

Quickly, photos did in fact become plastic and fake, which was not the goal of these original photo manipulators. Now, pimples, stretch marks, big noses - the things that makes us human - are disappearing with a touch of Photoshop. 

Retouching creates an unrealistic expectation for women (and men). It causes young girls to eat unhealthily or self harm in order to look like the retouched goddesses featured in magazines and social media. 

The result of retouching has been a positive movement (from celebrities to makeup and clothing brands) to create a more realistic and ethical image of the human body. 

“Fashion magazines are always about some element of fantasy, but what I’m hearing from readers lately is that in fashion, as in every other part of our lives right now, there is a hunger for authenticity. Artifice, in general, feels very five years ago," editor of Glamour Cindi Leive said. 

This "hunger" is why brands such as Aerie are receiving celebration of their campaign #AerieREAL, which highlights their untouched ad campaigns and website models. Celebrities such as Lena Dunham and Crissy Teigen use their social media to share unfiltered pictures of themselves. 

Picture source: Aerie.com

Unfortunately, seeing untouched images in fashion magazines today is provocative. It should be the normal, but instead it shocks us. Real images are unexpected, yet these pictures are telling us the truth. 

The fashion industry should continue to provoke until our definition of normal in the fashion industry has changed to include realness and authenticity.

Is Twitter a Modern-day News Source?

 Mallory Jones 

mj710116@ohio.edu

 

As the digital age continues to develop rapidly, the way to get news is also growing. Twitter was first used as a social media platform for memes and quick remarks. However, soon after the character limit was changed from 140 to 280, people started to share more than just a short thought and funny pictures. 

With Twitter's growth in popularity, many journalists, or even the new organizations as a whole, are moving to Twitter to get the attention of the viewers. Young teens and college students alike are turning to Twitter to get their information. It is quick, easy to read, and sometimes funny. 

 

Picture source: Journalism.org

On the other hand, there can be a considerable downside to Twitter as a news source. In 2013, Brendan Nyhan wrote an article explaining why a news organization thought it would be better to give out information on Twitter that the organization was not 100% sure if it was accurate yet. With news addicted being glued to their phones, the misinformation spread like wildfire, which can be a widespread problem with Twitter. 

Who cares if the information they are getting is accurate if the information is fast and convenient? Everyone should; however, it is very rare for the reader to do their own research into the facts of what he or she is reading. If the reader likes it, they want to share it with their "followers" as soon as possible. 

Yes, everything on Twitter is fast, and with so many people being on the platform, it is common for one tweet to get lost or never seen. With that being said, how does someone, especially a journalist who is trying to share their content, breakthrough all of the noise? 

Ann Friedman gives journalists a substantial list of reasons on why they should or should not go to Twitter to post his or her information, or just to have an account in general. One of her reasons to use twitter is to adapt to new platforms is a lifelong professional skill. Plus only 19% of adults use the internet, but 59% of those adults are a journalist. 

With all of these being said, can someone consider Twitter to be a modern-day news source? I believe so. Journalists everywhere are starting to think about joining the platform more and more each day. Twitter is an easy and fun place that maybe one day could be considered informational as well. 

"Fake News" Stems From the Pressure to Produce Quantity Over Quality

 Logan Leduc

ll504616@ohio.edu

 

Somewhere along the way, in the world of journalism, there has been an emergence of falsified content that has since been termed, "fake news." There are a plethora of reasons for this trend. It could certainly stem from the constant scrutiny journalists face to create a piece that is both informative but more imperatively, engaging. It could be purely based on a general consensus society has come to, based on a few past occurrences. However, its genesis can most likely be traced back to the hot pressure placed upon journalists to get as many "clicks" or interactions with the content being produced. Because of this, a balance between quantity and quality falters and that can lead to misinformed or weakly-researched "fake news."

In an article by Angele Christin of NiemanLab, it has been suggested that journalists feel the need to keep the traffic of content going and because of that, some content suffers. "As other sites, writers feel pressured by their editors to maximize traffic. One example: Writing a clickbait piece every five articles to 'reset the scale.'" This was a telling quote. The idea of keeping the traffic of any kind of news going is more important than a steady stream of reliable pieces moving out. 

In this digital age, people are active on their phones and they follow their news sources religiously. However, one 'clickbait' story can totally flip someone's opinion and the reputation of that newspaper can plummet. However, editors do seem to be pushing their writers to produce a certain amount of stories a week in order for those digitally-active fingers to click on and scroll through. They do this, despite the work being rushed and riddled with factual errors or too little information.

Picture source: cnbc.com

This image exemplifies exactly the issue we are facing. We type our articles so quick in order to push news out as fast as possible that we don't even realize we are typing out a piece that needs a lot more work.

In an article by AdAge, a very simple yet effective quote is used. "Don't put on airs. Don't try to be something you're not. For starters, it's dishonest -- not to mention embarrassing for everyone concerned." This is in the very first paragraph and while is simple, it tells a great lesson. One should never sell themselves short. Displaying your work, not your corporately-rushed work, is what makes you a good journalist. 

Writing the piece is only half the battle. It is our duty as journalists to conduct the proper research and fact-check the areas that need work. Quantity is rarely ever better than quality. Pressure can make one burst and act out of desperation, but journalism can be better. Yes, the people want news quickly and they want a great deal of it, but it takes one false article for that traffic to come to a screeching halt when those same people turn on your product. 

Fast News: Accuracy Not Guaranteed

By Arianna Guerra 

ag598417@ohio.edu

 

The days of reading the entire morning newspaper with a cup of coffee or even watching the evening news are over for many. Within the last 10 years, it seems social media has come in and stole the show. The shift to online media as the main news source was quick, and left news outlets scrambling to learn more about social media strategy and fast news. "With more than 2.4 billion internet users, nearly 64.5 percent of them knew about a breaking news alert through social media as opposed to traditional media" according to AOK Marketing.

Picture source: Pew Research Center

With the overwhelming demand for convenient news, the media industry is constantly changing and updating the way they share news. This has led to many great developments in the way outlets tell stories but it has also negatively impacted the accuracy of the stories. 

Breaking news on social media can spread like fire, and most news outlets are striving to be the first to light the flame. Being the first news organization to announce breaking news is becoming increasingly valued over being the most accurate source of information. 

There are many examples of this and it is quickly becoming the new normal. 

The 2013 Boston Bombing left people around the country on the edge of their seats waiting for information about the status of the investigation. Media organizations were obviously eager to report that information as quickly as they could, this led to an ethical disaster. 

As the police were searching for the bombers Reddit, a social news and discussion website, had growing theories about potential suspects. The Reddit community quickly decided on two suspects behind the bombing.  These two suspects were listed by their full name and some Reddit users included these theories in tweets. Once these tweets gained traction they caught the attention of many professional journalists who then retweeted the suspect's names. 

Although the majority of the retweets came from employees of well-known news organizations and not the actual organization itself, the general public considered this information factual. This showed that a professional journalist's retweet is seen as their approval stamp on the information. 

This would have been a breakthrough for social media reporting if the information had been accurate. However, according to The Atlantic the next morning NBC's Pete Williams debunked this rumor as he revealed the real identity of the bombers. 

Within a night a rumor that was proven to be false traveled like wildfire and was believed to be true because it had the support of professional journalists. There are a growing number of instances of how fast journalism can turn into an ethical nightmare. 

Former Forbes contributor Nicole Martin writes about this dilemma in her article How Social Media Has Changed How We Consume News. "With social media as our new news managers, it is up to us to be the new fact checkers for media" Martin wrote. She comes to this conclusion after considering the growing popularity of sources like Buzzfeed, an organization that specializes in fast news, and Twitter, a social media platform. 

Buzzfeed has defied the traditional rules of journalism to share news in a way that demands the attention of their audience, according to Who cares if it's true? an article published by Columbus Journalism Review. Instead of making corrections to stories that have been published, Buzzfeed has opted to instead hire copy editors to ensure their work will be as accurate as possible. If that work turns out to be inaccurate it will be the reader's job to think critically and do their research, just as Martin described in her article. 

This new method of reporting the news has caused great debate between those who value traditional media and those who are pushing to change those traditions. The only thing that remains certain is that the world of journalism will continue to change and journalists will have to determine what changes they are willing to make to reach their audience.

The Brutal Post-Truth Reality of the Internet Age

Bo Kuhn

bk135717@ohio.edu

 

In 2016, the Oxford Dictionary made "post-truth" their word of the year. They define it as "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief." This word, I believe, is defining of that catalytic year, and propels us further into an age where truth means whatever you want it to mean.

2016 was the year where the United Kingdom shocked the world and voted to leave the European Union in June, and just a few short months later, the United States took their turn at shocking the world and elected Donald Trump as president. Brexit, in particular, was seen as a done deal by the odd-calculating professionals, even up until the days before the vote.

So, what do these two events have to do with post-truth? Well, relative to their dates this Oxford graph shows that their usage peaked, and then regressed before rising massively as the election approached. 

Picture source: Oxford Dictionary

In fact, around the time of the election, publications like the Economist began to use the phrase as a descriptor for the new age we were entering, and said: "there's no going back". Though experts disagree on what exactly is the cause of the embrace of "post-truth politics", I believe it has to do with the rise of the internet, and the ease of access to comfortable information. 

Comfortable information, as it sounds, is simply any information, true or false, that does not challenge one's preconceived notions of the world or information that oppositely reinforces those preconceived notions. With the ability to rapidly share vast quantities of information to one's friends and family via platforms like Facebook without much in the way of fact-checking (a feature that was added in 2016), its no wonder people would start swaying toward inaccurate beliefs that are more comfortable to them. 

In fact, the preference for early information is already a well-documented form of cognitive bias. I think that this combined with the aforementioned ability to spread misinformation has lead to the rise of things like QAnon, a conspiracy theory that alleges that Donald Trump is a messianic figure who is battling a deep state cabal of satanist pedophiles who run a global sex-trafficking ring, which is based largely on messages posted to infamous internet message board 4chan. 

QAnon has become so popular in fact, that it currently sits equal with (and has gone higher than) the phrase "climate change" on google trends.

Picture screenshot: Google Trends

 

Though Google Trends is not exactly the same as a poll with great methodology, I think it is somewhat pertinent how popular the QAnon conspiracy has become. In the age of the internet, any and all information is just a click away, but with abundance comes lethargy, and nothing online is more abundant than information.

Truth Was Important Yesterday & It Will Be Tomorrow

Rhyann Green

rg156417@ohio.edu

 

Over the last few years, the term "fake news" has seen a resurgence in our vocabulary. The concern about spreading misinformation, however, has been present for centuries. In the late 19th and early 20th century, yellow journalism was a prominent issue in many newsrooms. A century later, journalists today are still struggling to navigate which value to prioritize: speed, entertainment, or accuracy. 

A 2019 Pew Research Center study found half of Americans believe "made-up news and information is causing significant harm to the nation and needs to be stopped." In the same survey, only 36% of Americans said that journalists create a lot of made-up news, yet 53% of Americans believe journalists hold the most responsibility to correct inaccurate information.

Picture source: Pew Research Center

In the age of the internet, information can spread across the globe in a matter of seconds. So can misinformation. As the presidential election nears, many of the Americans who will be going to the polls have been feeding into a popular conspiracy theory started online, known as QAnon. Those who follow the conspiracy theory believes President Trump is protecting the country from a child sex trafficking ring led by celebrities and politicians. None of the claims made in the QAnon theory have been verified.

Earlier this month, Time published an article about just some of the misinformation that is being touted by residents across Wisconsin suburbs. Reporter Charlotte Alter encountered conspiracy theories about both sides of the aisle: "Democrats were planning to bring in U.N. troops before the election to prevent a Trump win ... Trump created COVID-19 and will bring it back again in the fall ... Votes don’t matter, because 'the elites' will decide the outcome of the election anyway."

When facing such strong opinions from readers about who and what to believe, it can be tempting for journalists to give in— to give up on the pursuit of truth, or at least to prioritize other elements of a story. By focusing on speed, reporters may be able to gain readers by breaking a story first. By focusing on entertainment, reporters writing clickbait-worthy headlines could increase views and ad revenue. For some, when presented with these choices, prioritizing accuracy isn't necessarily the most appealing choice.

In 2014, Washington Post editor Marc Fisher wrote about a new approach to journalistic values that was happening in some newsrooms. Fisher writes that one journalist, working for Now This, does not want to report inaccurate information to readers but "wants to give them the closest version of the truth he can while still meeting them where they are, which is on their phone, right now."

It is not enough to expect the public to always correct misinformation and inaccuracies. In 2016, The Washington Post reported on a study that found a majority of links shared on social media are never clicked on. Many readers are missing crucial details only a click away; some may not even attempt to decipher if a story is legitimate beyond its headline. When journalists manage to succeed in grabbing their attention, we need to ensure that we are presenting factual, verified, and well-researched information.

Reporting the truth can be a long and difficult process. It can take days, weeks, or months to verify critical information in a story. Reporting the truth may not always be the most profitable move for the newsrooms we work in. Reporting the truth is often a thankless task, but it is not something we can sacrifice as journalists. Reporting the truth deserves first priority. If we want to regain the public's trust, it needs to be. No matter how the news continues to evolve, truth should always and forever be a core value of our work.