Journalism is not unethical, but journalists may be

Raaya Cummings
raaya.cummings@gmail.com

source: tumsasedgars/iStock

It can be argued that journalists lack ethical principles. As a result, they should not be trusted. However, where misunderstanding goes, misconception often follows. As critical thinkers try to define the lines of ethics many journalists cross them without any intention or prior knowledge of even doing so.

Without much consideration, some may agree that when discussing ethics, there are many basic absolutes in this world. If you steal you should be punished and if you take a life, even more so. On the contrary, when taking a moment to consider the circumstances of one's actions, others may disagree. What if what had been initially written off as a heinous deed was actually a feat of protection? Or, what if the altercation was at the fault of the victim? Suddenly, the road to determining what is right or wrong becomes a little longer.

Although on a typically smaller scale than theft or homicide, our everyday decisions are often based on ethical and moral principles. Throughout history, philosophers have been able to agree on the simple definition of ethics but not always on its implication. This is most at fault for the way our actions affect the world around us.

Reinhold Niebur, American theologian, stresses that moral behavior must be seen in the context of how our behavior affects others, the complex web of actions and interactions that make up human society (Moral Reasoning for Journalists E2). Many of us may find it easy to agree with Niebur concerning the relation of ethical reasoning and communal interactions. Yet, if every society is different, with their own evolving norms and general practices, do their ethical principles differ too?

This is the conversation between those who believe in ethical relativism (the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norm's of one's culture) and those who oppose. If true, there would be no moral standards to be applied universally, and every society would decide right or wrong for themselves. As a result of this dangerous scenario, the majority of ethicists do not actually agree with this theory and there are a few different reasons as to why.

Some argue that there is a distinction between general moral grounds and the interpretation of how they should be practiced. While others believe no one theory can be applied to every ethical decision. For example, doctors doing everything they can in order for their patients to feel better would be a moral principle upheld in every society. However, if assisted-suicide stops a patient from chronic suffering, then does that make it the moral decision?

The conversation of the boundaries of ethics could last decades, just as it already has. Sometimes, right and wrong are not always so clear and other times what's right for some is wrong for others. This is not to be an excuse for poor ethical tactics but rather a defense to the world of journalism as a whole. While some journalists may work in the shadows of bias or greed, it's important to understand that journalism within itself is not unethical and not all journalists who make the seemingly unethical decision did so with such intent. 

    

Where Does the History Lie Among Journalistic Ethics?

Marc Anthony Brown 

mb802117@ohio.edu

Navigating the internet becomes a minefield more and more with every passing year. While a lot of good has come from this online globalized community, there is a point to recognize problems that have sprung up as a result. 

With access to information at anyone's fingertips it has allowed opinions to be misinterpreted as facts. This issue can be seen most evident today within the attitude toward journalism and media as a whole. 

Trust in news and reporters has declined at an exponential rate with currently no end in sight based on current political attitudes among party lines. Among this discourse the ethical responsibility of journalists is argued as being non-existent however, an argument against those claims suggest that consumers of news and media do not properly understand journalistic integrity and the ethical responsibilities of a reporter. 

Instead of believing one side or another, as a true reporter would want to get down to the truth and truly understand where the misinformation lies. What has caused this virus of mistrust to flourish and can it be stopped? 

Source: Edelman; Chart; Axios Visual

In the current societal climate of the United States, Axios reports that in 2021 trust in traditional media has fallen to 46% over the last decade. Political contention in politics along party lines has accelerated this form of mistrust. 

Axios reports that 56% of Americans today believe news journalists are purposefully trying to misinform individuals. With 58% believing media stations are more concerned with supporting an ideology rather than telling the truth. Since the rise of 24 hour news broadcasting, political panels have been misinterpreted as a news outlet's entire position on facts and information of a topic. Calling into question the ethical responsibilities of journalists. 

Ethics is a word that is thrown around constantly within the conversation of journalism. A term that sprung up by the Greeks translating to the study of good. A well organized report on the truth helps fact and information to flourish. History has showcased the truth has bounced back and forth from being objective as control of church and state causes contention on what is true and what is not true. 

This mistrust in the media may be seen as an annoyance into today's climate - with individuals reflecting back to a time like Watergate where the truth was the only thing that mattered. However, an argument can be made that today we are in a new wave of Yellow Journalism - causing this calamity of miscommunication.

Healthline reports that in a recent survey that users who used Facebook as their main source of news were more likely to have vaccine hesitancy to fight off COVID-19. Many more young Americans are recognizing the problem Facebook has caused over the last several years with trust and information. Algorithms allow for niche groups to spring up and have their ideas supported no matter how correct those ideas may be. 

A debate on Yellow Journalism ethics is unnecessary due to the fact that it simply caused the news at the time to be exaggerated just for sales. And with this new algorithmic setting of news and information, many wonder if history can change or if it is destined to repeat forever? 

The weight of the situation indicate change could be held by political activism online. Pressure from the public through comments and posts can help keep media coverage objective and centered thanks to using algorithms to obtain viral status. But this fighting fire with fire situation can only remain for so long until a hard concrete solution can be created. 

Turning an ear towards the critics

 

Anna Birk

ab383718@ohio.edu

As journalism students, we are taught to question the integrity of the world around us. Raised as skeptics of humanity, we grow to view the world through that lens. What we often are unprepared for, however, is when the general public is skeptic of us. From day one, we are sat down and fed information about how the general public distrusts our profession. While, for many students and professionals, this is disheartening, it could be the perfect opportunity to learn from critics, so we may become better trusted in the future. It may not be surprising to find that the viewpoints of those who distrust the news media, may not be incredibly outlandish. 

Found in the, "Introduction to Ethical Thinking," chapter of, "Moral Reasoning for Journalists," written by Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader, is the important question: is the definition of, "good," the same throughout every interpretation, or does it change? While there are various ways of analyzing this question, the focal point for journalists lies within utilitarianism. 

Utilitarianism, in short, is deciding which outcome, in a given situation, will benefit the greatest amount of people – and then acting on that decision. Translated to the world of journalism ethics, this means: to report, or not to report? This ethical line becomes blurry, however, between various news organizations and reporters, thus impacting the public's trust of the news. Why bother trusting any news, when media outlets hold varying ethical codes, and report differently on the same events? 

The NPR code of ethics holds the line, "this handbook is intended not as a prescriptive list of do's and don'ts. Rather, it is a foundation upon which staff should consider these ... principals and exercise judgement in deciding how to ... serve our audiences with journalism they can trust." Looking from the eyes of someone with no reporting background, this line can seem as if reporters could have their own agenda: to deliberately con the reader. After all, if judgement is left to individual reporters, each could have their own idea of ethical. 

                     33% of U.S. adults say they have, "not too much," confidence that journalists

                act in the best interests of the public, according to a study by Pew Research Center. 

                                    

Michael Schudson, for the Columbia Journalism Review, counters that perhaps the core values of journalism should be more clear-cut for viewers. News consumers are often unaware of a code of ethics within organizations, or that the overarching goal is to seek the truth and hold accountability. Schudson makes an excellent point in that, news organizations need to communicate to their audience the difference between their writing departments, how news is gathered and the fact-checking process behind a story. 

The general public deserves not only to know the truth of what occurs in the world around, but also within their newsrooms. Rebuilding the public's trust of the news media should be one of our first goals as student journalists and as we enter our professions. 

The ethical dilemma of opinion writing

 Ashley Beach 

ab026319@ohio.edu 

Photo via engineering.dartmouth.edu

Journalism in itself is meant to be straightforward. All biases should be checked at the door and personal beliefs should not seep into a writer's work. Allowing personal opinions to be published in a media source can be problematic when looking at it from a philosophical standpoint. Yet, there are op-ed sections in almost all newspapers.

Op-ed, or opposite-the-editorial, articles are opinion pieces that can be found opposite the editorials page. They contain the ideas of an individual writer and are not to be associated with the newspaper or media source they are found in.

The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics helps separate the opinionated from the non-opinionated. It calls for opinion writers to "distinguish between advocacy and news reporting" and "remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility." These guidelines put forth a precedent that those who enter the opinion side of journalism will remain independent in their work and ideas.   

Despite this, the question still looms: is opinion writing ethical in a philosophical sense?

Several issues arise when putting opinion writing under a philosophical lens. The theories of teleology, rationalism and utilitarianism can all be applied to the nature of the practice. Each one has a role in how the piece is developed and consumed no matter what platform it is found on. 

An opinion writer wants their work to reach its target audience. To do so, they elect to discuss a topic that is right for the majority of readers. Doing so unintentionally puts utilitarianism into practice because writers want to do what is morally right for the better half of the group. But, it forgets about the morals of the author.

Authors can lose themselves when pushing to write what the masses want — opening the door for teleology. 

Teleology is the part of philosophy that deals with reaching an end goal. All pieces are written with the intention to inform, however, opinion pieces carry extra weight in this region. The end goal of an opinion piece is to bring awareness to an idea while attempting to not tie a publication to it. This practice is tricky because opinion writers want to garner support for their topic but must remain unaffiliated with the idea.  

Publishing multiple opinions in a section calls for the reader to think rationally about what they choose to consume. Pieces with identifiable biases and affiliations often have skewed information in them. When a reader looks for facts rather than emotions in an article, they use rationalism.

Rationalism is a two-way street, though. It creates room for the idea that reason is more valuable than experience when deciding to trust a source. Readers may choose to believe the article of a columnist because of their ability to push an agenda rather than their experience with the topic. A recent example of this is the misinformation of COVID-19 that was spread among infographics on social media platforms.  Many consumers trusted what they saw simply because of the person who shared it.

Philosophically speaking, opinion writing is unethical as a whole. Personal biases stem in the creation and consumption of opinion pieces. Philosophy and journalism are both about seeking and publishing the truth — truth that must be verifiable. Op-eds are still biased even if there is research to prove the argument in the article simply because there is an argument in the article. The biases found in opinion writing may not be obvious to the reader, but they can still be found by closely examining the story.  

Is the distrust in the media only for journalists to fix?

Rebekah Bostick

rb442218@ohio.edu

Everyday, journalists are told that they are untrustworthy, that they did not do their job correctly and that they are in a dying profession. Yet, here we are in school to learn how to become journalists or work in public relations.

Source: New York Times

It seems that lately there have been many claims against journalists from both sides of the political spectrum that any news produced is extremely biased. These claims, however, aren't new, and have only gotten worse since the beginning of the 19th century. Recently, certain political leaders were throwing around phrases like "fake news" that people seemed to pick up without knowing what they necessarily meant.

The public isn't at fault for not having as much trust in the media as they once did. It is harder to differentiate between real hard news and different editorial and opinion pieces. There are many different news outlets, some better than other and not everyone has the same access to reliable news sources. Like we spoke about in class, there are also entertainment centers that disguise themselves as news stations. 

There are a few things that journalists could do to try and get trust to flow back to them. I'm aware that this issue shouldn't be completely on the journalists to try and overcome however it seems like the general public needs a push to start trusting the media again.

Journalists can emphasize the difference between editorial pieces and news pieces. There is some confusion about what an editorial piece is and how it is opinion based. While there may be some fact in it, it is not a news piece, even if it is in a newspaper.

Journalists could explain what the ethics are that they follow, to show that they do intend to go out and write a story based on their emotional connection to it. Journalists go out to write stories based on facts and newsworthiness.

Is it only the job of those working in media to gain the trust back, or should those who are having a hard time trusting do some work themselves? I feel like there are always going to be people that are skeptical of the media no matter the presidency. Being skeptical of news is healthy, you shouldn't believe everything that you read. There is a difference between being skeptical of the news you read and not wanting to believe something because it does not align with your opinions.

Navigating the Media Minefield

Juliana Colant

colant02@gmail.com

Navigating the minefield that has become our media today is tricky, especially for journalists, let alone the general public. First, let's think about navigating the media from the viewpoint of the general public. It baffles me how much the internet has influenced media. There are a plethora of news sources available to the public nowadays. It is an overwhelming amount and there is no guidance for people on what is trustworthy and what is not. Talk about exhausting. How can people know what news to follow? 

Today, online news outweighs print news, thus changing journalism revenues. Money comes from assets like advertising and page clicks. So, naturally, journalism has strayed from focusing on reporting the truth. Instead it focuses on what will make the news company money, what will draw viewers and how can they sell their ad space for a larger profit. Combine that with the average citizens need for political power trip and the result is media confusion. It comes across as each news source trying to put on the best facade to draw readers. As a result, readers are left wondering who to trust.  

Now I know that paragraph was kind-of a condescending and pessimistic view towards journalism. But, honestly, I am not trying to put down journalism, just raise awareness that a reader must view news through a different lens than in the past. Today, readers are required to second-guess what they read and not blindly follow the herd of what everyone else believes. These days, one cannot be spoon-fed a news source and accept it as the full unbiased truth. Instead, they must take that spoonful, spit it back out and re-chew it through by fact checking process. 

We learned in class last week how greatly the public distrusts the media, yikes. According to Forbes, "fewer Americans than ever before trust the mainstream media." Personally, I found the most shocking statistic from Forbes to be that 61% of Americans think"The media is not doing well at being objective and non-partisan." 

Similar to Forbes findings, according to Pew Research Center, only about four-in-ten Americans trust their favored media. 

This week's class reading spoke about the ethics, what it means and how it affects journalists. Journalists are faced with the responsibility of being ethical. However, they are not required to be ethical. There is no law preventing journalists from being unethical, it is just expected. To further elaborate, the text uses the example of a democracy. In order for a democracy to work, it is expected citizens follow the laws. Often times, people choose to follow the laws in order to prevent consequences and chaos. 

The text also expands on the idea that journalism is a profession of public service. Journalists are faced with the daunting civic duty of remaining ethical in a media world full of poor examples and influence. However, I have faith my upcoming generation of journalists will change the narrative. People deserve truthful news. Take out the money, political bias, tabloid journalism and spinmeisters. Don't overcomplicate it and stick to ethical reporting. By doing anything less is a disservice. 

However, that does raise the question of what is ethical journalism? The Society of Professional Journalists spell out an extensive code of ethics, which can be found here. It focuses on seeking truth and reporting it, minimizing harm, acting independently and being accountable and transparent. Again though, just because there are ethics, doesn't mean journalists must follow them. Overall, ethical thinking is a minefield, much like navigating media today. This does not make me lose faith. My generation of journalists have their gear and are ready to go to battle. 

Trust in the media is at an all time low. What can be done about it?

 

courtesy of: shutterstock.com

Aya Cathey

ac460519@ohio.edu

A decline in trust

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in August, trust in the media has rapidly declined along the partisan spectrum, particularly among Republicans. While 78% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents have "a lot" or "some trust in media from national news organizations, only 43% of Republicans and right-leaning Independents feel the same. More specifically, approximately 58% of overall Americans have at least some trust in the media but tend to trust their local news organizations more than national news organizations. 

So why is this?

Over the past few decades, trust in government and media has fluctuated as the political landscape shifted and different social conditions rose. In our current political climate, media bashing, the practice of criticizing the press in an attempt to delegitimize their work and undermine public trust, has become a popular tactic among politicians and some partisan-leaning news organizations. As a result, the war against the fake news narrative has begun. Cornell University defines Fake News as "fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent." Essentially, fake news is intended to deceive people and incite public fear and mass hysteria. 

Attacking credible news organizations and journalists under the claim of "fake news" jeopardizes the entire existence of the journalism field. While social media has undoubtedly allowed misinformation to spread at a faster rate than previous years, the Fake News phenomenon is not nearly as prevalent a danger as others may want you to believe. 

Fake news stories are intentionally fabricated and often include minimal verifiable facts or sources. Unfortunately, trust in media is large impacted by the person who shared the information and the platform on which it is shared. Therefore, when an individual on social media dislikes the perspective of an article then writes a post claiming it as "fake news" for the entire Internet to see, hundreds of more people are deterred from trusting that source, and the cycle continues. 

Over the summer of 2020, many students on social media took it upon themselves to educate their peers on pressing issues such as gun violence, police brutality, and public health during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. While their intentions were positive, many social media users sacrificed content and detailed sources for fun, eye-catching graphics. As a result, many people were not learning the full extent of issues being discussed by news platforms, leading to a spike in performative activism campaigns that were ineffective and often problematic. 

How do we fight the narrative?

In order to combat the issue and rebuild one's personal trust in the media, it is essential to practice media literacy. This is the understanding that different people with different experiences construct media and messages, and most media is organized to gain profit and/or power. It is best to read a wide range of sources and opinions and think critically about the information presented when consuming news. Most importantly, if you are unsure of the validity of a source or feel the content may not cover the entire issue, do not share it with others. 

Trust is not served on a silver platter

 Claire Del Vita

cd750919@ohio.edu

With growing distrust in the media and the persistent rhetoric that it is all "fake news", it makes entering the field for a student journalist extremely daunting. People constantly critique my career choice, scoffing especially when they hear that I am a political science minor. After all, who would want to go into political journalism in the time of Donald Trump and Joe Biden? When the right and left cannot seem to agree on anything and all hope seems lost, but this is what I love to do and it is why there is an intense need for journalists to fine-tune the way they perceive ethics.

Source: How Fake News Penetrated Politics

Being ethical is not a straightforward concept. One may think that they are acting in the best interest of themselves while also considering the feelings of others when in reality they are causing more harm than good. For many, ethics are based on good and bad or right and wrong. However, as we read in "Moral Reasoning for Journalists" by Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader, it is best to base your choices on reasoning, considering the pros and cons of an action, and then deciding if you are being ethical or not after the proper amount of thought has been given. Decisions in the media and other sectors that you have put little thought into, if any, may often be the very ones that bite you in the butt. As explained in the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, "Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one's work and explaining one's decisions to the public." While your last resort when writing an article should be having to explain why you took a certain path with your decisions, you must do it with full transparency and honesty. When we reevaluate our ethical principles, we will be able to mend the distrust between journalists and their audience.

As we discussed in class, a major catalyst for the distrust in the media is the growing gap between the right and the left. It has been a common trend that liberals find most news organizations to be trustworthy and sharing straight facts, while conservatives see the media as a weapon of mass liberal destruction. A study by the Pew Research Center found that "More Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents trust than distrust most of the 30 outlets in the study, but the reverse is true among Republicans and GOP leaners." The media outlets in question ranged from what are considered to be more biased sources like FOX News and CNN to Politico and The Wall Street Journal. What surprised me the most about the study was that FOX is considered the most equally trusted and distrusted news outlet based on the study's ratio. To me, this suggests that while political bias plays a large role in how Americans view the media, we can still gain trust despite that. Whether your audience tends to lean more towards the left or the right, you can maintain an equal amount of trust on both sides if you work keeps ethics at the forefront.

If journalists focus more time on building their brand around ethics, then we can regain the trust that has been lacking. It will take time and effort, and it is not a task that one person can undertake alone. From the media executives running news companies to the journalists telling stories to the editors and behind-the-scenes staff, everyone must play their part equally for change to be made. After all, trust is not served on a silver platter.

The Broken Relationship between Journalists and the Public

 Erin Ashley

ea350918@ohio.edu

In such a rapidly developing industry, the spread of news and information has evolved and become more accessible than ever before, from watching news anchors on a television screen to refreshing the Twitter trending page on a smartphone. With such a rapid evolution comes an entirely new way of communication, a way that is simple, quick, and at times impulsive or dishonest. 

The simplicity of posting to the internet allows anyone to post anything they like with little to no repercussions. There is no requirement to spread only the truth and reality. 

This facet of free speech has dwindled the public's trust in journalism as a whole because quick and easy information may be quick and easy, but it is not consistently factual or accurate. 

The deadly combination of social media and lack of representation of groups in the minority in the media has plummeted the validity of journalism in the eyes of the public because of the inconsistencies in reality.

"How Americans get their news": The American Press Institute

Social Media: A Double-Edged Sword

A blessing in disguise, social media is! While it is one of the main sources of news and information for the general public in this day and age, it is also one of the main sources of deception and inaccuracy.

One can post anything his or her heart desires; such desires aren't required to be restrained by the truth. This has led to a skeptical audience. The learned tendency to be a skeptical reader has led to a disbelief in journalism, as many are quick to judge what is truth and what is not the truth in their own opinions.

 Journalists struggle to bridge the gap that has been created between the media and the public due to misinformation that could have been spread through social media.

TIME Magazine explores the idea that journalists now have to consider both what people say versus what they do and then explore why those two facets might differ. TIME recognized these truth-seeking journalists as the "TIME Person of the Year" for the year 2018 for their revolutionary approach to the trust issues that the public has developed with journalism. 

These journalists have taken on the strenuous task of rebuilding the trust in the media by the people that once existed in society in hopes to recover what once was. It is important for journalists of all types to follow this approach carefully and with open minds in order to eventually recover the trust in journalism in its entirety.

Misrepresentation: Both Spoken and Unspoken

While it may be easy to attribute the lack of trust between the media and the public exclusively to lies and misinformation, misrepresentation of people from minority groups is another deadly source of mistrust. Misrepresentation can be deliberate as well as inherent. 

As journalists, it is our responsibility to recognize what we choose to write about as well as what we choose not to write about. The neglect of communities of minority groups has directly contributed to the decline of trust between journalism and the public because of the decades and centuries of overlooking or blatantly ignoring cultures, communities, and history. 

Catherine R. Squires, a professor of communication studies at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, writes how decades of misrepresentation of communities of minority groups has led to a general distrust of those in minority groups in the public media. Squires mentions how the thoughtlessness of an entire community's culture has undoubtedly led to a trust gap between said community and the media, as the media has either deliberately or inherently neglected an entire culture for an indefinite amount of time.

Mending the gap between communities of all backgrounds and histories requires journalists to investigate their intended topics as well as their unintended perceptions of what is left unspoken by the media. 

Who determines right from wrong?

Lily Biros

lb526018@ohio.edu

Everyone has heard "fake news" circulate through pop-culture, Twitter, politics and everyday conversation, but where does all this distrust come from? It seems like these mainstream feelings are fairly new, but in reality, people have always critiqued the media. In today's day and age, trust in the media has been at in all-time-low due to money, public image, tabloid journalism and political bias. Anyone can look up "fake news" in a search engine and thousands of hits pop up with biased information. Social media is swarming with unresearched click-bait, and it's often hard to distinguish what's real or not. It doesn't help that many people base their opinions from others without doing their own research. 

Picture source: Trump's "fake news" tweets 

Oddly enough, what if everyone believes that what they are producing and writing is ethical? Would it be so off the mark to assume that people who write "fake news" actually believe that their work is beneficial to society? 

The problem with public opinion is that everyone judges journalists differently. People view journalists as too right-leaning, liberal, biased, shady and fraudulent based on their own moral codes. But how can journalists be too much of anything if the definition for right and wrong can vary?

This can be a tricky subject because there are so many codes and ethics, spanning from religion, public figures, philosophy and "gut feelings." Luckily for journalists, there is an established code that is used to produce ethical content for the public written by the SPJ. Their code consists of elements from religious texts and famous scholars by maintaining journalistic integrity. Their four main goals; seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent, all lay down the rules for how journalists should act and behave. Anyone who claims to write and does not abide by these rules shouldn't label themselves a journalist. Because of this, journalists have received a bad reputation from people who aren't even in the field. 

The importance of following these codes is imperative due to the fragility of society due to social media. People can believe anything and treat them like facts, while TMZ produces untrustworthy articles like this. 

The only thing that modern journalists can do to combat public onionin and slander is to continue with ethical writing. Gaining the trust from the public isn't won by writing what you think is correct, but in producing what is morally just. Journalists must remove their personal bias in order to serve the public.

Trust Stems From Knowledge and Understanding

 Ayden Crowley
ac893419@ohio.edu

As our first week in ethics started, we were quickly familiarized with the public distrust in

the media. It was to little surprise that many shared this sentiment, however; the

discourse about the lack of trust sparked reflection for me. There are a number of sources

for this feeling: political interest, financial pressure, or a rise in opinion based content just

to name a few. But what can we do to improve this problem? As someone with a vested

interest in the future of the journalistic landscape, it is imperative to try and improve the

current image of mass media. How do you build back trust? This is obviously not a simple

task. However I believe the best way to improve trust is through an expansion of knowledge

on both sides of the coin.

Image Source: Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

The Publishers 

The best way to solve a problem is to attack it at its source. As a journalistic community

there needs to be a greater emphasis on the fundamentals and communication to the

audience. It feels like there has been a collective drift away from unbiased reporting. A

greater emphasis has been placed on opinion pieces and the line between the two has

been blurred. It is our responsibility as journalists to create a more concrete distinction

between the two. Opinion pieces are valued and entertaining as displayed though the

dynamic shift in mass media, but they are just that: opinions. A second way to shift

comes from establishing a connection with the audience. In an interview with Pulitzer, investigative journalist  Lynn Walsh of Trusting News says, “If we, as journalists, take

a moment to explain what we’re doing, talk about what we’re doing, listen to our

audience more … these trust issues can take a 180-degree turn and we can regain

some of the trust we’ve lost." This is an intriguing stance that I think is work exploring.

I would equate this with Adrian Wojnarowski at ESPN. The audience has created such

a deep and trusting connection with Woj because of name recognition. This could greatly

improve public relations if that kind of trust is established more often. 

The Audience

However, trust is a two way street, and there are ways that everyone can improve their discernment in the media that they consume. Personally, I think there needs to be greater emphasis on media literacy in schooling. I do not believe enough people are equipped enough to deal with the currently journalistic medium with misinformation spreading like wildfire. A study, which tested 7,800 students' ability to recognize "fake" vs real news, conducted by Stanford University found that "more than 80 percent of students couldn't identify biased content from independent news sources supported by groups like lobbying firms as being less reliable than a mainstream news source." This number is concerning. I would strongly advocate for education on media literacy early on in schooling. This could entail, recognizing bias, checking sources, etc. The consumers of the content should have a better grasp on what it is they are reading. This will help weed out the great articles from those seeking to spread misinformation. 

Public Relations, what for?

Christian Donald

cd341620@ohio.edu

 

At the beginning of this week's reading I thought I knew what public relations was all about. Boy, was I wrong! I thought public relations people were employees who when a problem arises they created statements that were released to the press. To put it simply, damage control. However after reading this weeks material I now know that public relations involves much more, and also now know what kind of things to watch for future readings on forums. What I am talking about with regards to forums is what is called Astroturfing, this is a problem that I had never heard of before but is something I have probably seen before.

 

Picture source: The Cleveland Indians have recently changed their team's name and logo.

Ethics 

After doing this weeks reading, public relations takes on a whole new meaning to me. Before, as I stated in the introduction was just as I said, damage control. However, public relations doesn't have to be here just for a problem, but also can be a way a dealing with the public to eradicate things the public doesn't like, and the public relations' company comes to agree with. I am a big sports fan, and recently indigenous people wanted the names of the Washington Redskins, and my favorite sports team the Cleveland Indians changed. If it were not for public relations in situations like these tensions can rise if matters are not dealt with and are put to the side when the public deems them necessary. In the situations that I named earlier with the sports teams, both names were changed. Here is the link to the story about the sports teams I was talking about.

Astroturfing 

Astroturfing is something I had never heard of before but is something that I am starting to take serious, and hope that this problem doesn't get too out of control. Astroturfing is where company employees' make up profiles and join online conversations trying to persuade the public to join their side on a matter relating to an interest that the employees' company plays a part. While I myself do not take part in much online conversations about political issues or things other than sports matters, I find this problem to be very concerning and hope that is brought to a halt, I feel that if caught astroturfing a business should have to pay a penalty. Here is another article I found that did a good job explaining this problem.