The 1619 Project: A Missed Opportunity by Lucas Morel

Aya Cathey

ac460519@ohio.edu

Extra Credit

Lucas Morel, 2020. Courtesy of the Abraham Lincoln Association

On Tuesday, the Menard Family George Washington Forum hosted a presentation at the Galbreath Chapel here at Ohio University. The speaker, Lucas Morel, is a professor of Politics and Washington and Lee University and the author of several books, including "Lincoln's Sacred Effort: Defining Religion's Role in American Self-Government" (2000) and "Lincoln and the American Founding" (2020).

The 1619 project was developed in 2019 by investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and published in The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine. It commemorated the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in Virginia and intended to place Black Americans at the forefront of the nation's founding. In 2020, Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her introductory essay. The 1619 project has sparked controversy and received criticism from journalists, political commentators, and historians such as Lucas Morel.

Morel believes the project had potential but fails to present an accurate account of American history because it portrays a "zero sum game instead of an integrated struggle." He continues on to explain that his greatest concern with the project is that it positions white contributions to history as "bad and ugly" and perpetuates the narrative that America was founded on white supremacy. 

Morel stated, "Her essay was political divisive in its presentation of American history as heroic black virtue trimuphing over persuasive white vice."

The one place where Hannah-Jones and Morel can agree is the importance of learning and passing down history. Where they disagree is which narrative to write from. Morel seems to view the Black perspective as a distortion, one that leaves out the "facts" and discounts for the hard work of the country's founders. Other historians have also agreed with his sentiment that pitting races against each other undermine civic trust. 

Overall, I did not enjoy this speaker, and I had several issues with his statements. He spoke about a need for equality over equity, and he seemed to favor the oppression of minority voices if it meant appeasing white people and traditional American systems. I didn't particularly appreciate when he said that Black Americans needed to understand that America's founding was exceptional because it minimizes centuries of abuse, torment, and literal enslavement. As a student journalist, it also upset me that he went after Hannah-Jones' character and not just her profession. As a Black woman, she has every right to tell the stories that matter to her culture; whether or not she "assembled facts" to promote an agenda, Morel was wrong in stating that her work was untrue and would make America "unloveable." 

All history should be shared from diverse perspectives, no matter how "ugly" it is. Slavery was a legal institution that has left a lasting legacy on our country. Morel suggested that to avoid catastrophe and build a successful nation, slavery had to persist as long as it did. And since the founders knew the practice was unjust and eventually outlawed it, their actions are excused. While I agree Hannah-Jones could have referenced more American historians in her project, Morel's presentation is far more opinionate and divisive than her work.

Lucas Morel's Perspective of The 1619 Project

 Jenna Hill 

jh875318@ohio.edu

(Extra Credit)

Lucas Morel is the head professor of politics at Washington and Lee University. He has been in this position for more than 2 decades now. Dr. Morel has a wide variety of experience in leadership positions. He has held positions such as, those within the Abraham Lincoln Institute as well as the Library of Congress' historical exhibits.

Source: University of Colorado Boulder

 In his presentation Morel focused on explaining how The 1619 Project was a missed opportunity for journalists, historians, and all citizens. 

He believes the 1619 Project was insufficiently published by the New York Times writer Hannah-Jones in 2019. This article was published in 2019 to recognize the 400th year anniversary of the beginning of American Slavery.

When describing Hannah-Jones' publication Morel states, it "only supported one side" of history. 

He explains that journalists, such as Hannah-Jones, fail to provide all historical transparency; in which historians would do no such thing. 

 The 1619 Project was aimed to give citizens a better understanding of our nation's history meanwhile, it further supported the lack of acknowledgement of the challenges black Americans face. It is imperative all of us Americans reflect on the heroism Lincoln showed by saving our nation from slavery. 

The published article stands on the foundation stating America was born in 1619 when the first enslaved people arrived in Virginia. The article by author Hannah-Jones begins by stating our democracy's founding ideas were falsely written. The New York Times sets the tone and paints a picture when introducing the 1619 Project. 

Lucas Morel again further supports his beliefs when stating "The 1619 is undeniably an American culture phenomenon." 

Abraham Lincoln's efforts are explained in detail to help viewers understand the length Lincoln went to to advocate for Blacks in the United States. 

Lincoln recognized minority groups alone could not win in a battle against the opposition without the help of others. History includes Lincoln's arguments stating African-Americans had the same rights as all; leading to his presidential decision of the Emancipation Proclamation. 

 I agree with the statement that the insufficient publication of the 1619 Project in 2019 fails to encourage citizens to resolve political issues peacefully. The article does not make understanding the rights of Black Americans any easier or help solve political or racial issues today.  The article further polarizes the US rather than unite them. 

Overall, I found Morel's presentation eye-opening. It is imperative for journalists to publish all sides of historical stories; thus being completely transparent. 

Click at Your Own Risk: How The Web Watches Us Back

 Emily Baron

eb113717@ohio.edu

Full illustration credits to Alyona Brailovska

    Welcome to the digital age; An age in which technology is integral to day-to-day life and can be found on our desks, in our homes, in our hands, and even flying in our skies. As a journalist, it is easy to notice the massive influence technology has on the way we receive and process information. What once was a job that required ink, paper and a writer is now a job that is dominated by the internet’s influence, with less and less printed media hitting the shelves and switching to online than ever before. 

People today are constantly surrounded with technology and observing its content, like when we scroll through social media or when we indulge in scouring online articles and blog posts, but what if the observed content is observing us right back? Journalist Rami Somaiya for the Columbia Journalism Review points out how intricate the algorithm for the company Google is, "...with analytical tools to look for attention spikes on a variety of topics,” in order to strategically place personalized content to the top of readers’ screens. “Success means that more people click. It is, roughly, the business model of pornography,” Somaiya asserts.

Amassing clicks from internet-users is the ultimate goal for content creators. Google is not the only online platform with clickbait specifically tailored to analyze and individually manipulate the delivery of information to its users; Facebook is full of it too. Online content creators Goldman and Wade openly admit that in making Facebook posts, their goal is not to share accurate information, but to intentionally cram as much attention-grabbing vocabulary and imagery as possible in a headline to garner more clicks, or, more cash. They pay great attention to the statistics of each article, without taking their eyes off of the number of views or hits. Journalistic integrity and honesty is not on their radar as increasing profit is.

With people like Goldman and Wade rapidly spreading misinformation on Facebook, baseless media content or "fake news" is clouding timelines like never before alongside a plethora of other stories purposefully positioned to manipulate the viewer. As active members of digesting digital information, it is imperative for readers to consider what headlines are meant for disseminating knowledge and what headlines are deliberately sensationalized to trick and deceive. Clicks are currency: spend them wisely.

How Technology has changed Journalism: Make up Blog

 Ella Umbarger

eu594318@ohio.edu

    Currently I am taking coms 3200: Communication and New Technology. Through the semester I have learned a lot about how technology has affected communication. Through social media many things have changed in communication and journalism. There are new ethical conflicts that have now risen. 

    

    Clickbait has taken over online reporting. Using clickbait techniques can greatly mislead an audience. Clickbait goes against the SPJ code of ethics. “ Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.” Using a dramatized title like they do in clickbait articles deliberately distorts the facts and their context.

  

     Many people compare clickbait to online yellow journalism. Yellow journalism started in the late 19th-century and journalists used sensationalized or biased stories in their reporting instead of the impartial truth. Some characteristics of yellow journalism can still be seen in clickbait journalism today. 

                                                                    Source: Oliver Munday    

    From the article,  it seems that Goldman and Wade only care about the number of clicks they get and the money they make, not actual reporting. Although money is a huge motivation for anything, I think if that is your only motivation for reporting it may lead to some unethical journalism. They use tactics such as exaggeration, stoking fear, inflaming racial and gender tensions, and using conspiracy theories to capture their audience. 

    Sharing “news articles” via social media can lead to a lot of misinformation or “fake news”. Ravi Somaiya said , “Facebook is a toxic town square. Social media is Christmas for fraudsters.” and “The best way of sifting the information we find online is, simply, to report before we publish, as we would offline.”  

    Following the ethical codes biased on traditional print media can still be applicable but there are ethical codes specifically for online journalism. The center for journalism ethics has provided a guide for digital media ethics.  It goes over some difficult questions in the age of digital media journalism. They cover anonymity, speed, rumor and corrections, Impartiality, conflicts of interest, and partisan journalism,  entrepreneurial not-for-profit journalism, reporters using social media, citizen journalists and using citizen content, and ethics of images. 

    I believe that educating yourself about these ethical dilemmas and looking at professional codes can help alleviate some of the issues of online journalism. Also as an audience not clicking on stories that have obviously sensationalized headlines can help not give this unethical journalism the attention it seeks. The less clicks the articles get could help steering it in the right direction. 

Addressing Hate Crimes in the Media

Claire Schiopota

cs123719@ohio.edu

In the age of Black Lives Matter and white supremacy, current news outlets have had to take a special look into how they cover hate crimes. Finding a balance between reporting on these issues without giving controversy a platform to thrive on comes with experience over time. Today, many reporters struggle with this concept. 

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than half of hate crime victims don't file reports to the police (What We Discovered During a Year of Documenting Hate — ProPublica). Last year almost 90% of local law enforcement agencies reported having zero hate crimes in their communities. Ultimately, this all shows that hate crimes already lack accurate coverage. The media must pay extra attention to the actions they take with this in mind.

Source: It’s time for the legislature to update hate crime definition - Big Jolly Politics 

While there are many things in journalism that must be closely payed attention to, there must be a special emphasis on journalism rules when reporting on hate crimes. 

The language must be extremely precise as to not sway the audience to one side or another. The Poynter (How journalists should handle racist words, images and violence in Charlottesville – Poynter) said, "Be wary of subjective adjectives and unclear labels, like far-right or alt-right. Instead, describe what protestors were doing, what they were saying and what they were demanding. Be precise. It is not enough to simply call the marchers White nationalists." Journalists have often found themselves caught up in corrections for incorrectly naming or grouping individuals.

Every photo and video used in association with the story also must be given for context for use. The Poynter said, "It may be tempting to omit from coverage instances of violence committed by counter-protesters because their side is standing against racism, but video shows violence from both camps. It's not always clear who is on what side. Use captions and narration to make it clear." Both sides of the story needs to be told and accurately represented. Just like journalists need to watch the words they use, they also need to watch the images and videos they show. It carries just as much weight, if not more. 

When we report on hate crime, we always run the chance of giving a platform for white supremacy and other controversial perspectives. There always may people who had never heard of these issues until we report on them, but if we inform our audiences accurately and effectively, we did the best we can to avoid this problem.

As a student journalist, I haven't had many opportunities to cover hate crimes, but it's important for me to inform myself now before I have to do so in my future, as I'm sure I will have to. 

 

Delano Massey talks to student journalists about what he does as the producer for CNN's Race and Equality Team

Erin Ashley

ea350918@ohio.edu

Delano Massey, an award-winning journalist, started out as a police reporter in St. Louis, Missouri, which is an incredibly impoverished city with lots of crime. He stated that it was difficult to get information as a police reporter but that he learned a lot.

On November 8, Massey, who was selected to be the producer for CNN's Race and Equality Team, gave a virtual speech to student journalists about what he does as a member of his team. Massey clarified that this team hasn't always been around, and it only arose in the year 2020.

CNN President Jeff Zucker stated that the creation of this team was to break news and cover stores surrounding race and systemic racism, which is something that has plagued the media since the heightened media presence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the year 2020. Because of the protests that broke out in 2020, Zucker believes that Americans now recognize how many facets of life are plagued by systemic racism.

Massey clarified that "this stuff is cyclical", meaning that there are patterns in the stories that his team covers.  Zucker believes that the patterns of racism have been shown in more indirect ways, such as lack of representation in leadership roles and inequality in business, politics, and even the media.

Graphic courtesy of Pew Research Center

With Donald Trump being president during the Black Lives Matter movement protests, Black Americans expressed discontent with how Trump relayed his response to the protests that resulted from the death of George Floyd. However, on the other hand, Black Americans felt that news organizations that covered the protests that resulted from the death of George Floyd did a much better job than Trump.

Massey discussed how one of the first major things that his team covered was the case involving Breonna Taylor, a Black woman whose house was broken into by police which resulted in her death. He expressed that as the producer of this team Race and Equality Team, his job was to tell his peers that this story needs more attention.

Another case that Massey demonstrated interest in covering more was the case involving Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man who was unarmed and killed while going for a jog. He said that we, as journalists, need to reflect on these incredibly pivotal cases and push for more attention on them.

The creation of this team was to provide these intense cases and stories a platform and a voice. Massey stated that he and his team are simply a "vessel", allowing other people's stories to come through them.

Massey announced that his team has met resistance in the past for the stories that they cover. However, he emphasized that they must work through it in order to fulfill the promises that the team dedicated themselves to.

During the Question and Answer portion of the presentation, a student came forward and asked how white people can help tell these stories and bring justice where it needs serving. Massey asserted that white people can simply be allies, be advocates, and amplify Black voices.

The Great Divide: Right vs. Left in the Media

 Bennett Snyder

bs381219@ohio.edu

It's very clear to most that almost all major media sources nowadays lean one way politically. You've got your CNNs, and you've got your FOX news' with loads of other sources between. For someone just cracking into the depth of news sources when the election was taking place, the realization of this divide was clear as day. 

Growing up in a house where my Mom is a Democrat and my Dad was a Republican didn't make life fun come election years. When I was younger they kept it less obvious, but last year they made it clear they disagreed on a lot of topics. This comparison I believe rings true to a lot of news sources. As we are further away from election dates, say a president is in year 1 of his first term, news sources may make it less obvious which side they lean towards to try and attract all audiences. As the years go on, and that president is nearing the end of his or her term, we start to see news sources pick up the intensity and truly show their political side. 

In some cases, the person in office is so polarizing, it does not matter how far along they are in their term, they most certainly will always be the center of attention. One side will view them as royalty, one side will view them as a coward. Donald Trump was that guy. 

Image: Financial Times 

Tyler Fisher wrote a great article showing how Trump was covered by both sides of the media pertaining to the same events. After violence erupted in Charlottesville, here were a few headlines from the right: "Donald Trump Blasts Reporters at Trump Tower for One-Sided Charlottesville Reporting" and "Trump decries 'alt-left' in Charlottesville: 'Do they have any semblance of guilt?'". Now, let's look at headlines from the right: "Trump Gives White Supremacists an Unequivocal Boost" and "Trump: 'Both sides' to blame for Charlottesville". Two headlines from each side could not be more different due to the way the media is politicized.  

Covering hate is a tricky topic, nobody really likes to hate, the defeats the purpose! Hate is bad, something we should avoid at all costs in journalism. According to Rachel Glickhouse , we saw a rise in hate crimes and bias incidents as we neared closer to the 2020 election. There is no doubt in my mind we still see that connection as we continue to cover COVID-19 in the media. What I've learned is no matter what agenda your publisher has, you need to be careful your words don't spark the public to be enraged. Most times, the best way to do this, report the facts. 

Hate Needs to be Correctly Addressed in the Media

 Payton Szymczak 

ps692718@ohio.edu

notyap5968@gmail.com

White supremacy in America is not covered the way it should be to its full intensity. In the newsroom, word choice needs to be addressed when it comes to terror in America. Challenges are approached when it comes to journalists choosing the right words, and images featured in their work. 

Words and images used by journalists should be accurate. They have the responsibility to be showing truth to the public. In the article on Poynter, How journalists should handle racist words, images and violence in Charlottesville, the author states, "Bring context to the video and still photos you select. Your first duty is to explain what happened. Choose images that accurately reflect the events as they unfolded." The captions, narration, language, and word choice used should accurately display the images chosen, and the event behind the image. The article also explains how journalists should not assume that the audience reading the story already know and understand the content the journalist is displaying.  

Certain topics should be more common and intensified in the newsroom. For example, an article, White-supremacy threat demands its own beat reporters, on Columbia Journalism Review. discusses the issues regarding how the media covers white supremacy, and refers to the violent events in Charlottesville. The author states, "If more newsrooms covered white supremacy with the intensity it deserves, fewer white people might have been surprised by the events in Charlottesville...The media is preoccupied with race only when turmoil arises, such as in Ferguson and Baltimore, he argues, but over time race gets pushed down a newsroom's list of priorities." 

Making the white supremacy issue a priority in the newsroom can be an improvement. For example, the article, White-supremacy threat demands its own beat reporters, states, "By making the white supremacy beat a priority, newsrooms will cultivate reporters who grow in expertise, can avoid using PR-inspired descriptions such as "alt-right", and produces stories less superficial than some of the white nationalist coverage we've seen since the election." 

Image: The Parliament Magazine

Hate needs to be correctly displayed to the public in the media. In the article, What We Discovered During a Year of Documenting Hate, on ProPublica, the author discusses how hate crimes are poorly tracked in America. The media is in need of doing a better job accurately providing information about the hate occurring in America, so that people better understand the truth behind violent events. 

Minimizing Harm in Photojournalism

Grace Morris

Gm245917@ohio.edu

Source: Photo Industry News, Resources, and Opinion 

 In today’s world, the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” is more relevant than ever within the field of journalism. For journalists, the use of photos and video has revolutionized the way a story is told and conveyed to the public. However, this usage has also brought about many ethical conflicts and dilemmas concerning the subjects and the audience.  If the use of photos and videos is done poorly, this can affect the public’s view and trust of journalists.

One ethical dilemma that can arise with the use of photos and videos is the issue of the subject’s privacy. In recent years, the number of protests has increased substantially and has once again become a vital part of American activism. During these protests, journalists and photojournalists take photos and videos to document these historic events. However, many protesters have spoken up about the dangers of having their photos being taken and published during a protest.

According to an article published by the Center for Media Engagement, it states that in states like Florida, an individual attending a protest can be fired from their job or even charged with a crime. Many have called photojournalists to consider blurring out the faces of protesters to maintain their privacy and safety. However, many journalists believe that showing faces is critical for these types of stories. Journalists have also stated that blurring out the faces of protestors would impose on the ethical codes of photojournalism.

The National Press Photographers Association’s website lists 10 ethical codes and guidelines that photojournalists should always follow when producing and publishing work. The fourth ethical code that is provided states that photojournalists should treat and give all subjects respect, dignity, consideration, and compassion. In addition, the sixth ethical code that is provided states that the editing of photos and videos should maintain the integrity of the original medium’s content and context. Also, the medium's content should not be manipulated or altered in any way that can mislead the public or misrepresent the subjects. 

With these ethical codes in mind, how photojournalists decide to pursue these conflicts will inevitably affect how stories are written and pursued in reporting. This is a difficult avenue that many journalists face today. In my opinion, I believe that the faces of the subjects during these events should be shown to ensure that accuracy, transparency, and honesty are being upheld. It’s up to journalists to ensure that the images they provide are honest and accurate but most importantly, minimize harm to all parties involved. 

The Impact of Not Reporting Hate Crime

Eric Steere

es581519@ohio.edu 

Journalism can be extremely powerful when it comes to making change to the public, as well as making the public aware. Done correctly, news stories can change how certain events and actions take place in the future, change policies in the government, and even change the way people go about their day-to-day lives.

Awareness can only be brought to the public if the journalism or media outlet decides to cover it, and One thing that has flown under the radar for many media providers is the topic of hate crimes. 

Every single day, crime takes place all around the world, and while sometimes it may seem like that is all the media talks about, there are so many hate crimes and discriminatory actions that go largely unnoticed by the public. According to a propublica.com article entitled "What We Discovered During a Year of Documenting Hate" by Rachel Glickhouse, over half of all victims of hate crimes do not report the incident to the police, and the majority of the police force isn't trained to deal with hate crimes. 

Source: nbcnews.com 

Awareness is extremely low for hate crimes, and this is partly due to the media's lack of reporting on the subject. When there is reporting on hate crimes, the information can be inaccurate or misleading because details of the real story get left out or exaggerated.

For example, word choice can have a huge impact on the way an audience views a situation, like how people view a protest. As stated in a poynter.com article entitled "How journalists should handle racist words, images and violence in Charlottesville" by Al Tompkins and Kelly McBride, describing things as a "riot" and a "civil uprising" are two entirely different terms; a riot indicates a crime taking place, whereas a civil uprising is a justifiable action against injustice.

It is important for the media to cover topics such as hate crimes, but more importantly cover them accurately to reassure those who fall in targeted demographics. Inaccurate reporting, or misinterpreted coverage like mentioned before can do more harm than good by making a situation worse than it may need to be.

Going forward, I believe many journalists need to face the fact that hate crimes are an unfortunate reality. More importantly, however, journalists must realize that they have the power to combat these crimes by bringing awareness to the problem and informing the public of what is happening to its people. 

Failure to convey such information can lead those committing the crime to believe these actions are acceptable, or that they can get away with crimes since nobody is stopping them. Journalism could be the key to preventing hate crimes in many areas across the globe, but it all depends on the media organizations and if they decide to cover it. 

Reporting on Hate Speech: A Careful Balance Between Information and Glorification

 Kat Willette 

kw154717@ohio.edu 

In this era of mass information spreading more quickly than we can control, it is now easier than ever for groups to gain traction online. In fact, many movements have started online and strictly maneuvered within the walls of this seemingly lawless matrix. While some movements that gained a following through social media and online reporting have made remarkable progress for marginalized groups within the United States, unfortunately the internet amplifies the voices of other groups that promote hateful language, radical ideas and racial slurs as well. 

The ability for the internet to rapidly accelerate any cause, humanitarian or harmful, has made reporting in the 21st century frustratingly more difficult. Today, journalists must walk the never-ending tightrope between giving consumers enough information to feel safe and educated, yet omit enough detail so as not to give 'kudos' to the hate group itself. 

Often times, reporters are faced with harsh deadline pressures, public scrutiny and the responsibility to get ratings for their organizations, leading to the sensationalization of a hate group's actions. According to United Nations Human Rights office of the High Commissioner writer, Aidan White, "It is not unusual to find mass media recruited to support the cause of intolerance. Too often, compliant media are accomplices in creating public insecurity and ignorance" (White). Many times, reporters feed into mass panic and intolerance by bringing specific platform points or group members to light. 

Source: Nieman Lab

The issue of reporters magnifying hate groups' causes by using members names, showing footage of rallies for extended periods of time or focusing any media attention on these groups at all has been publicly criticized as a means of enabling more people to spit hate speech or commit heinous hate crimes. According to Associated Press,  "Critics say giving the assailants notoriety offers little help to understand the attacks and instead fuels celebrity-style coverage that only encourages future attacks" (Pane). With this, Pane is stating that instead of publishing the names and biographies of certain people, instead focus on the details of the crime and the status of any victims. 

While Pane was speaking in the context of indescribably tragic school shootings, the same philosophy can be applied to hate speech groups; do not publish any member's name, a group name, or platform causes. To publish any more than the general facts and location of the gathering is to ensure the story does not stay within the control of the media. 

Overall, reporting on hate speech and hate crimes is an extremely sensitive field. Reporters must make sure they are gathering not just accurate facts, but the right facts that will both inform and protect their followers without further inflaming the altercation. 

How and Why Journalists Should Report Hate Stories

Tess Woodyard

tw330817@ohio.edu

When journalists cover stories, they have to be aware of what kind of speech they put out. It is important for journalists to tread lightly on certain topics. This can be a dangerous thing for journalists to cover in news stories because they have to worry about the topics and the speech they use.

One of the most important things for journalists to remember is to report the truth and state the facts. According to an Article by Poynter, when reporting crucial stories, they have to be precise with language, politics, images, videos and avoid using code words and shorthand writing.

It is critical for journalists to be precise with their language. Rather than using labels, explain the full story of what is happening. When reporting on violent stories it is important to not incite violence. According to Poynter, rather than using words like "riot" or "mob", replace them with a phrase like "civil uprising".

When describing politics, journalists must use words and labels that don't automatically give stereotypes. For example, when speaking about certain groups that have stereotypes, you must be careful not to reinforce the stereotypes and explain what their movement stands for.

As for videos and images, journalists must include context. With social media in this day in age, videos can be cut down to only show certain aspects to find exactly what you are wanting to hear, but it is important to share the full story. Truth and transparency are overall.

Along with photos and videos, journalists can not just show the violence that takes place. This leads to even more hate on social media. It incites violent acts. It is also a core value for journalists to minimize harm. This includes sharing photos and videos within stories. Not only do we need to protect those within videos, but also the people watching them. 

As journalists, it is helpful to not shorthand your writing. Not everyone understands the same code words and phrases you do. Explain the full story so the general public can understand. 

Source: New York Film Accademy

Although documenting hate can be a challenging thing for journalists, according to an article by ProPublica, there are significant impacts from reporting and documenting hate stories.

According to ProPublica, there have been numerous policy changes from organizations due to journalists reporting these stories. Recommendations for better police policies, hate sites have been taken down, digital hate crime reporting processes have been changed, police departments have changed how they categorize hate crimes, and there has been an increase in resources to properly train police departments to identify and investigate hate crimes.

These are all incredible accomplishments that help journalists to continue reporting these stories for the right reasons and in the right ways.

Why Covering Hate is Important.

 Audrianna Wilde

aw455919@ohio.edu

audrianna.wilde@gmail.com

Today, more than ever before, journalists need to cover dome
stic terrorism and hate-driven crimes. In a time where social media is ever-present in our daily lives, therefore opening up increased opportunities for efficient and effective mass communication, hate speech has found its foothold and spread like wildfire. 

Social media grants people anonymity and hides people behind screens rather than having them interact face to face. According to a New York Times article, social media has emboldened people to cross lines on what they would typically say, provoking people and inciting anger, hate, and even violence towards them. The lack of in-person contact gives people a sense of security knowing that their post or comment, among thousands of others, will not generate an immediate face-to-face altercation, and might not even be recognized as hate speech and get taken down, or result in any consequences at all.

Additionally, social media allows for messages to be sent at lightning speed to audiences of great sizes with the simple click of a button. According to the same NYT article, social media companies have created, allowed, and enabled extremists to move their messages from the margins to the mainstream at velocities never seen before. 

Source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/richard-spencer-trump-alt-right-white-nationalist/

So why don't journalists cover domestic terrorism like they do foreign? And why is it important that they do? Does covering hate speech and hate crimes not give a megaphone to the hate?

The news consistently gives coverage to foreign terrorist groups like ISIS, however, according to an article by the Columbia Journalism Review, a database of domestic terror incidents by The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute showed that between 2008 and 2016, far-right domestic terrorist attacks outnumbered Islamic terrorism in the United States by almost double, and were deadlier. 

White nationalists and the impacts of white supremacy run rampant in our country, so why are we not hearing about it? It is important that people know what is going on in the world around them. According to the SPJ code of ethics, it is crucial that journalists seek truth and report it, and ensure the context in which it is reported is not distorted. Journalists should be striving to represent and show the prevalence of white supremacy in America. They should be exposing its roots, where it is found, who is continuing to feed into this culture that continues to have a hold on our country, and what its impacts are on the people that they target. 

If newsrooms covered white supremacy in the same way that they covered foreign terrorism, it would not amplify the hatred, but instead people would understand the true magnitude of the problem and do something about it.

Hate Speech: Just how Much Power Does the Media Hold?

 Countless crimes of racist and prejudice passion have occurred over the years in the United States. It has become evident that they most come from nowhere and seem to vanish just as quickly after some time. There is no true way to track these heinous acts, mostly because no outlet knows where to start. While there are no true right or wrong ways to handle tracking these events and writing about the groups who commit these crimes.

No matter what side journalists look at, there is a certain etiquette and poise they must go about with addressing sensational headlines such as racist attacks and radical groups. There is a certain language that the media holds that is revered by readers and is taken as gospel. The authority of the media can make or break charged situations and potentially make it better or worse. The readers also deserve to have the most non bias language as to not turn the public one way or another without the full story. Once an article is released, there is an opportunity to retract certain statements, but it is usually downplayed if it is retracted. This leaves the original statements of the article left in readers' minds. In an article from Poynter, it lays out certain language do's and don't's as well as how to handle images, videos, and other critical points how to handle hate speech. Some of the points made included not including charged language when describing an event or incident. Other points mentioned include to use context when referencing a photo or video and to avoid slang or short hand terms.

All of this comes into play when covering events such as the most recent election, any terror attacks, and any topic that is radically left leaning or right leaning. The divide of the population that can happen when the media divides can be detrimental for the future of conversations. In an article from Politico, it shows how detrimental the split of the media has become to conversations of actual topics that need to be addressed in the United States. The article shows how the event of in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12 was poorly reported and was sensationalized on both left and right side Twitter. 

Image: Politico
 

Another article that is important to the conversation is an article from Propublica. This article reveals how hate crimes are poorly reported or not reported at all. It touches on the fact that many hate crimes do not get reported to the FBI, and therefore the numbers are skewed. In the article it says the FBI counts roughly 6,000 hate crimes, but the BJS estimates roughly 250,000 due to lack of reporting from state and local officers. These gross misrepresentation of numbers has revealed how necessary change is in the crime and punishment systems.

Hate Speech and Media Framing: How Journalistic Wording can Influence our Society

 Alex Semancik

as477018@ohio.edu

The racial violence in Charlottesville in 2017 highlighted an ongoing conversation in the United States of America, how should journalists cover hate speech, racism, and violence? The answer lies within the journalistic code of ethics itself- be objective and report the truth. Haphazardly slapping a news story together filled with inaccuracies, generalizations, and subjective biases is beneficial to no one. Even if that means taking time, and not rushing to be the first one to get the story out. Especially in the instances of hate speech, racism, and violence the time and precision to craft a true and objective news story should be utilized.

Language should obviously be a very large component in creating a news story about something like the racial violence in Charlottesville. Journalists bear a large responsibility in communicating events like this to their audiences in a transparent and objective manner. This responsibility can appear even more daunting considering that the specific words a journalist uses in an article can impact many people and the way they think. That is a lot of power, and as such language in a story should be extremely precise and objective. As Al Tompkins and Kelly McBride state in an article from poynter.org, "Be wary of subjective adjectives and unclear labels, like far-right or alt-right. Instead, describe what protesters were doing, what they were saying, and what they were demanding. Be precise. It is not enough to simply call the marchers White nationalists. Explain that they chanted Nazi slogans including “Sieg Heil,” a victory salute used originally by Nazis at political rallies." As that quotation explained, it is better to describe the situation precisely and objectively rather than turn to hasty generalizations that may offend people. 

Photo Courtesy of globalr2p.org

Politics is another component that should be considered when creating a news story that may have to do with hate speech, violence, and or racism. Similar to language usage, discussing politics should be very precise and specified. Politics brings a new issue into play: partisanship in media. Referring to an article from politico.com, the discrepancies in Twitter headlines between left and right news outlets are astonishing. Reinforcing the large divide in American politics between the left and right that already exists is not in the best interest of the people. Both left and right media outlets are profiting off of engraining their respective ideologies into each respective pole in an extremely polarized American political climate. This is unethical and though it is largely in practice I don't believe it should be. 

Hopefully, as time goes on, covering issues or events relating to racism, violence, and hate speech in a truthful and objective manner will become second nature to journalists. If that is the case, the public will receive increasingly accurate and beneficial news, and journalists will gain greater trust and integrity. 

Covering White Supremacy

John Steitz

js810618@ohio.edu

Photo via Charlottesville Tomorrow

  

    Coverage of white supremacy in today’s newsrooms leaves much to be desired. Only when domestic turmoil arises in places like Minneapolis and Seattle does the media cover the topic with the focus and purpose it deserves. Much of this is due to what Howard French describes as “the enduring whiteness of the American media.”

    In his article for The Guardian, French discusses his own experiences as a black reporter and how the racial makeup of newsrooms impacts news coverage. What he calls “the persistent issue of typecasting” refers to a deeply embedded practice that classifies certain news topics as “black” and the rest as “white”. Combine this with a systemic failure to integrate newsrooms by welcoming and encouraging African-Americans, and you’re left with predominantly white newsrooms that are responsible for conditioning Americans’ understanding of America and the world.

    So how can journalists effectively cover hate, violence, and white supremacy, without amplifying those groups and their messages? According to a Poynter article on the subject, the key is to use the traditional tools of journalism- precision, clarity, and context to give audiences the whole story, while also taking steps to avoid giving a platform to hate groups and their movement.

    Precision and the language we use in our writing are of the utmost importance to our reporting. We must avoid being subjective and using vague labels in descriptions such as far-right or far-left. Instead, describing people’s actions, words, and goals helps the audience better contextualize and understand events, as well as how they unfolded. For clarity, it’s also best to not make assumptions about your audience. Avoid codes and shorthand writing, and explain everything.

    Context is also essential, especially with regards to any pictures or videos that are being included. We have to select media that accurately reflects the events and aids in our audience's understanding. It may be necessary to censor hateful signs or language. Showing our audience what they need to see to understand what’s happening can be accomplished without amplifying the voices and messages of hate groups, who would love for journalists to include their insignia and logos in their stories.

    Journalists need to learn these lessons so they can adequately report on white supremacy in America without boosting the platform of hate groups. As professionals, we must approach the topic of white supremacy with all the seriousness and contextual depth it requires. Treating instances of civil upheaval like an aberration, instead of a symptom of a larger systemic issue, is damaging. Even as the public shifts its attention, we must be diligent in our reporting.

Does Truth Need Blurred

 Wesley Minke

wm598119@ohio.edu

When it comes to our reporters today, and the way in which the world gives us our news to break, we are provided a position in which there is almost no way to win. Following the tragic death of George Floyd, and the uprising of racial injustice in our world, the media was forced to almost pick a side in the way they cover information. 

https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/05/riot-or-resistance-the-way-the-media-frames-the-unrest-in-minneapolis-will-shape-the-publics-view-of-protest/?relatedstory

When I say pick a side I mean these networks make you, the listener or reader, decide whether or not you want to support one side, or support the other. In this case it is either you support the protesters, whether violent or not, standing up for their rights and what they believe to be necessary. On the other hand you can support the police, whether violent or non-violent, who are trying to protect the city and gain public trust back in a time where the public is reluctant to do so. 

To be honest it is an unfair spot to put the public in, and alongside that, it is very hard to cover biased media sources. It gives almost all of a site's credibility become almost irrelevant if they choose to pick a side because the odds they cover the other side is very low. Most people that choose to watch super biased media watch it because they just want to listen to people who agree with them, rather than trying to learn about something from someone who is different from them. 

It is unfair to assume that everything you see is the honest truth because every single person that is in charge of these networks has to decide what side they want to air. However, there are always the extremes, and some networks like to air the extremes to prove a point. Whether that be some of the brutal attacks on innocent protestors like we have seen aired, or the protestors violently tearing apart local businesses. There will always be the extremes and it's a line that we shouldn't cross, but some choose to. 

So we need to truly consider, what is the line, and how can we avoid crossing it? This becomes quite the ethical issue when we consider how we share the whole news. We have to make that split second decision of whether or not to give the audience the full story even if there are at risk to possibly be exposed to some pictures or scenes that would not be ok for all audiences. Without showing some of these pictures our stories could be incomplete however, so we must choose wisely. It is a big ethical conflict, but one we must always take very seriously. 

https://mediaengagement.org/research/blurring-the-line-between-reporting-the-truth-and-minimizing-harm/

https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/06/its-time-to-change-the-way-the-media-reports-on-protests-here-are-some-ideas/

The Power in Publishing Protest Photography

 Cameron Robertson

cr102019@ohio.edu

Photojournalism is a key element of journalistic storytelling, and has had such a heavy influence on stories for many years. Some of the most devastating and tragic moments in our history have been covered through photojournalism and have influenced society through this method of communication to the public. But with the rise of technology and smart phones, anyone can be a photojournalist nowadays.

At any point in your daily routine, you can be captured in a photo by someone's smart phone, even without knowing. Many people have been captured doing good things and bad things courtesy of smart phones due to the sheer nature of their ownership. This takes some of the professional aspects out of photojournalism, as now basically anyone can be a photojournalist, simply with their smart phones.

In today's world, that's a big development. With the amount of protests, rallies, and public gatherings that have occurred in America since the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, thousands of photos and videos from the Black Lives Matter movement have appeared on social media and from different news publications.

Photo via Axios

The images often invoke emotion and convey very powerful messages. The question, however, deals with consent to appear in photos. Should average citizens be able to shown in these photos without consenting to them being posted? Protests have a very polarizing effect on society: some people see them as an advocation for basic human rights, while others will argue that the protests are politically charged. This can cause an issue of some people not wanting to be in these photos.

The idea of consent isn't really possible with random citizens posting to social media, but it is possible by major news corporations. But they also have a dilemma. These photos can be extremely powerful and important to the story they are covering, but they also have an ethical duty to minimize harm towards the public. 

At the same time, it's an extremely difficult process to try and get the consent of all people who are at a protest. There can be anywhere from hundreds to thousands of citizens at these protests, and could be hundreds of faces in a photo. The effort to get consent from all those individuals can be challenging and exhausting. An article from a PhotoShelter blog discusses blurring certain citizen's faces, but then that can take the power out of the photo and ruin its contribution to the story. 

At the end of the day, news organizations must always have ethical pursuits, so they most definitely should attempt to gain consent to publish photos from protests. They are professionally and ethically held to a higher standard, and have more power in publishing these photos than the average person on social media. 

There's a power in publishing, and it's one that needs to be used ethically and responsibly. 

Is White Supremacy Coverage dying in the Media, or is it just Being Ignored?

Jaiden Tabor jt283118@ohio.edu As movements such as black lives matter start to rise in media and in America, it is clear that Americans face more threats to internal minority groups than just what is assumed. Although everyone knows about ISIS and external terrorists, the most dangerous groups are not always imported or foreign. Unfortunately, these are also the groups that receive the least amount of coverage in the media. Some are entirely unaware that they are the biggest threat because of the overstimulation of foreign coverage. After the attacks in Charlottesville, at the hands of white supremacists, many journalists struggled to properly report due to the fact that the words used could have been very offensive. This simply could be many of the reasons why it is so hard for journalists to report on topics related to white supremacy. Not only is the topic difficult, but one slip up, and your reputation could be ruined. Many of the terms used by the groups are deemed derogatory and racist. They are essentially the reason why ethics come into play when reporting on such topics. You are supposed to seek truth and report it but at what cost? When using precision and language you can either be part of the problem or better describe and help others understand the problem. For instance, when discussing the events at Charlottesville, instead of repeating the phrases that may be offensive, explain what the nazi slogans meant and add a deeper meaning to the story.

Another thing that causes difficulty is the fact that it is inevitably human desire to want to pin the occurrences on one political party. This could be upsetting to the party at hand. This is a problem that has occurred often in the past which has caused Fox and CNN to maintain a far-left or far-right political side. When writing independently it is important to not attack one party because this can create bias. It is also important to not label the act that occurred as terrorism because the intent is unclear. Although it may seem like hate crimes are automatically an act against a minority it is important to clarify the driver. All of these things are important to consider when reporting on the unfortunate events of not only acts against minorities but all white supremacy acts. It is still something that goes on in our generations and it still has a following. Many people are unaware because it is unclear how to properly report on the matter. If we ignore it it will not go away. It is important to make the public eye aware of the events that still unfold in our day-to-day lives. Photo sourced to The Nation "how to dismantle White Supremacy"

Publishing Photos in the Age of Social Media

 Kevin McIntyre

km675818@ohio.edu

kevinmcin11@gmail.com

Photojournalism can be one of the most effective ways to influence society. We have seen photojournalists cover some of the most important and some of the most devastating events in history. What has changed in recent years, however, is the fact that anyone can be a photojournalist. There is no need for someone to own a camera or work for a news publication when social media and smart phones exist. This leads to the ethical question of how we can minimize harm while still publishing impactful photos. 

In the forefront of issues that were raised in 2020 was the problem of police brutality, which was an issue that was sparked after the murder of George Floyd in May of 2020. Since then, America has seen countless protests in cities around the world. One thing that has remained constant throughout all of these protests is an abundance of images posted on social media or by news publications. 

Image: The Guardian

From these protests, we have seen some of the most powerful images in recent years. This begs the question, however, of whether or not average citizens have a moral responsibility to conceal the identities of the people in their photos, or request consent before posting them to social media. 

This is a question of minimizing harm towards the public, versus the possible positive impact that these photos could have on the general public. While many of the protestors that are photographed would likely argue that the protest is simply an advocation for human rights, there are others in America that see the protests as politically charged and polarizing. Therefore, there is a certain element of danger for those that are seen in photos that have been published. 

However, we are in an unprecedented time in which anyone is liable to be photographed at any time via smart phones, and published online via social media. In a perfect world, everybody would have the ability to give or to not give consent before an image of them is published, but this is simply impossible in society today. 

News publications, on the other hand, should be held to higher ethical standards than everyday protestors when it comes to publishing photos. The reason for this is simply because of the audience that they reach and the ethical standards that have been set for them in the past. Consent to be published in an article from a large news organization is very important, and regulations are necessary. However, there is always the question of if the photo is too powerful to not be published, which should be decided at the discretion of the individual publication and examined in an ethical manner. 

Blurred Lines of Photojournalists

Avery Ovens

ao138618@ohio.edu

averyovenss@gmail.com

https://www.documentjournal.com/2020/06/the-blurred-faces-and-ethics-of-protest-photography/

        Journalists have been given the greatest storytelling tool of photo and video helping to bring their story to life. Conveying truth is every journalist's main priority and making sure that reality is captured and relayed accurately is extremely important in doing that. With that being said, having photo and video can bring about my ethical conflicts between the subjects and the audience. This can affect how people perceive journalists if done poorly. People's faces being identified in these published works has put journalists in a tough spot to protect the privacy of these individuals but also to continue to report truthfully on the story. Just because taking photo and video footage is lawful doesn't mean it is ethical to do in certain situations.

https://mediaengagement.org/research/blurring-the-line-between-reporting-the-truth-and-minimizing-harm/

        There have been speculations if photojournalists should blur out the faces of people in their visual media as well as if they should seek the consent of those pictured. Journalists feel that blurring out faces goes against many important thing's journalists need to do in order to do their job. Blurring faces can affect how well they connect their story with the audience. Showing real faces helps make the story more personal to the people reading about it. Faceless people turn into nameless people which end up turning into something that isn't even real. Gathering the names of those pictured is a way to respect them but also in large gatherings it can be hard to do. When covering protests, it can be very fast paced with many different things happening but, trying to connect with the protestors can help get their consent as well as their story and feelings adding a different perspective to the story. 

https://blog.photoshelter.com/2020/06/no-photojournalists-arent-advocating-the-blurring-of-faces-at-protests/ 

        Photojournalism in public places causes many ethical concerns with the privacy of people because though it is legal to photograph in public spaces, there are still social courtesy's to be mindful about. In some areas, if you are pictured at a protest, you can risk losing your job or even be charged with a crime. Taking a picture of a child in a public place can cause conflicts with their parent or guardians if consent was not given even though it is not required. Taking pictures of homeless people is also allowed but can come off as disrespectful since it is a vulnerable subject. Sometimes the original intentions of photojournalists get lost when things get published and the audience can take things into their own perspective. Being mindful of the subjects that need to be captured for a story is important to minimize harm but also, it is important to convey the world as it is to tell a truthful and informational story.

https://mediaengagement.org/research/blurring-the-line-between-reporting-the-truth-and-minimizing-harm/

https://blog.photoshelter.com/2020/06/no-photojournalists-arent-advocating-the-blurring-of-faces-at-protests/