Lost in the web: The struggles of Facebook's political climate

Photo provided by CartoonStock
 

Through the political atmosphere, there tends to be one source of media that allows for misinformation and conflict: Facebook. This social platform has been a battleground of misinformation, for people can misconstrue facts and voice their opinions. Though people have the right to voice their opinions, the line becomes blurred when deciphering between fact and opinion. Employees of Facebook understood that the recent uptick in Facebook misinformation soared when Trump and Biden were running for office in 2020. Unfortunately, because of the quick capabilities of Facebook posting, the platform has not been able to diminish the misinformation quickly.

Groups like "Stop the Steal" once appeared to protest the election but were ultimately taken down because of false information being linked to it. However, the misinformation was up for some time, causing confusion and conflict.

However, it's about finding a balance between understanding ethics, giving people a voice, and avoiding spreading false information. Mark Zuckerberg even said there was no way Facebook could have influenced the 2016 election, but it has a past of influencing politics and even tracking it. 

These social media platforms can be helpful to belittle and criticize political parties and people by simply attacking their character, like Kamala Harris experienced racist and sexist comments that had nothing to do with her ability to be in office. This attack on character is a big part of the problems social media platforms pose. 

In the eyes of politics, it seems no news source can be of satisfaction. Unfortunately, though, politics were not a part of social media in the past, and ever since they have been, there has been an even stronger divide between political parties.

Through convincing campaign advertisements, people can also be confused about facts and what is based on pure opinion. However, this issue seems to worsen with every election and advancement in social media. More platforms have been used, like TikTok and Twitter, to add to the overall confusion. It's fearsome to think about what social media will cause the United States to argue over next. 

In an article from Poynter, in 2020, many newsrooms turned to a different way of media coverage. This trend included becoming closer with their audience and thinking about what they wanted their audiences to think about during an election. So often, people lose sight of what needs to be thought about during the elections because they are so focused on causing conflict with their opposer.

Continuing to inform the public should be of utmost importance, but the halt to posting misinformation on Facebook is most likely far out of reach.

Social Media has a huge influence on politics

Kate Anderson

Ka668316@ohio.edu

There are over 500 million tweets shared per day. In addition, Facebook users post over 350 million photos a day. The mass amount of information and misinformation that is shared daily is enormous. With this amount of posts a day, social media can influence millions of people. One area that has seen a massive impact from social media influence is politics. 

Facebook released a study in 2010 that proved that posts made on social media sites did, in fact, influence elections. The spread of information is so easy on social media. Still, the excess amount of information makes it harder to decipher misinformation and fake news. The spread of false information can form into attacks of political figures based purely on lies. We can see this with the case of Vise President Kamala Harris. Lies about her were spread across social media, stemming from one false opinionated statement.  

Courtesy of evergreen.greenhill.org

All of the information on social media does make it hard for users and voters to decide what is real and what is fake. It can also make it harder for social media users to trust honest reporters and news stations producing real, factual news. 

According to an article by the Hill, "clicks, ratings, and subscriptions are all up, but so are allegations of bias, social media pressures and questions about the news media's integrity." People are interacting with, seeing, and being exposed to more news than they ever have before, questioning what they are seeing. Even differently, politically leaning news stations are attacking one another. This fact also adds to mistrust of the media. 

In an article, Jonathan Tasini said, "the biggest threat is the baked-in ideological bias that leads to traditional media outlets repeating misinformation and lies, which leads to things like the Iraq War, the phony government deficit hysteria and the pimping for so called 'free trade' and that deep bias hurts progressive views and candidates like Bernie Sanders just as much if not more." 

All of this impacts sharing information on social media and politics in the United States. Social media has forced political ads, campaigns, and news coverage to be cautious and intelligent while using social media to promote themselves. Political leaders need to be aware of false news, votes, and citizens. It is essential to take note of the information and double-check if it is true or not.  

To Silence Or Not to Silence: Will silencing users on Facebook stop the spread of misinformation?

Illustration from World Health Organization 

Technology, especially social media, has evolved so much over the years, allowing users to access the most information possible. However, many people cannot differentiate the difference between fact and fiction, which ultimately spreads misinformation. 

The most significant contributor to the spread of misinformation is Facebook. Their most significant offense is allowing so much misinformation to spread online leading up to the 2020 election. Unfortunately, the company did not tweak its algorithms that sought this false content until October, when the election was in November. 

Another mishap occurred during this period; Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was also accused of allowing misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines on the site. His argument for this claim was that "getting rid of misinformation on Facebook is just too hard, and people should expect less." Unfortunately, with this mentality, the spread of falsity will grow on and on. 

After the 2016 election, when Facebook was accused of impacting the election because of fake news on the platform, Zuckerberg said that "voters make decisions based on their lived experience." Not only did he not acknowledge that his platform could be at fault, but he also did not see that misinformation is even a problem. He could not admit that information spread on his site might have negatively impacted such an important event. 

After Facebook declared it would crackdown, or somewhat, on misinformation, many conservatives claimed that the platform targeted conservative voices and even questioned the legality of monitoring content online. Facebook responded, saying they hope to squash extremism and misinformation, not target right-wing voices. 

During the long-winded free speech debate between Facebook, users, and politicians, a recurring argument against monitoring content was that free speech was allowed online; the right of free speech was codified in the First Amendment. When that right was recognized many years ago, the Founding Fathers were probably not expecting social media's ability to impact society so much. 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows companies like Facebook to moderate content on their sites, but they are not liable for illegal content. So while Zuckerberg does have the ability to monitor misinformation being spread, he chooses not to. 

Facebook needs to continue monitoring content to stop the spread of misinformation. It is more important to silence blatantly false voices rather than being worried about the few users who believe and whether they believe that is targeting. The situation will worsen if this continues, and it will only contribute to public distrust. 

How political candidates and organizations are using the media to impact elections

Molly Burchard 

mb712319@ohio.edu

                                                             

Graphic from End Now Foundation

There is never a slow moment in the news during an election cycle. Media companies all over the country work around the clock to keep their audiences informed about the choices they have on election day. Candidates for office also use the media to help sway voters. Special interest groups do this as well to help their political agenda. 

In 2004, a series of television ads created by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made a sizeable impact in that year's presidential election. The organization created ads that argued the democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, would not be fit for office because he had acted unjustly while serving in the Vietnam War. Kerry's military record told a different story. He was awarded multiple awards for the injuries he obtained overseas. However, the ads still gained much traction on TV and across the media. 

The ads created enough doubt to make voters skeptical of Kerry. Even if they didn't like the war George W. Bush was holding in Iraq, these television ads made voters hesitant to vote in Kerry. As a result, Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election, and the ads spread across the media may have contributed to why. 

Since then, the media's influence in elections has evolved. Social media now plays a part in the future of the American government. In 2012, the Obama campaign used Facebook to help reach millions of supporters. The Obama campaign even had its own Facebook app, which gave users the option to share their Facebook friends list. According to  Yahoo News, this feature proved effective as most users did. From there, the campaign would use the friend's list to target new individuals and make suggestions on who to send Obama-related content to. Through the media, the Obama campaign influenced new group supporters. 

A new form of media that may be influencing elections is TikTok. Candidates trying to target young voters are starting to utilize this forum. In 2020, U.S. Senate candidate Jon Ossoff used TikTok to help him narrowly win the election. He posted short videos on the app that followed relevant trends and shared his political agenda. He made sure to highlight issues that would be important to young people, like cutting student loans. This act of taking and posting videos on the app inspired a new crowd to go out and vote for Ossoff. 

In the coming years, it will be interesting to see how candidates and special interest groups continue to use the media to help impact elections. As technology changes, candidates must continue to evolve if they want their campaigns to stay relevant. Who knows what the future will bring, but we may see new forms of political action in the media.  

How does Facebook affect our elections?

Katie Baneck

Kb271219@ohio.edu

Illustration by Katie Baneck

The 2020 election took place in a bizarre time in American history. Then, misinformation and political polarization were the norms, and they still are today. Along with those alarming aspects of our media environment, information is more accessible than it has even been. It is also much easier for everyday people to share content.

We can thank many of these things to Facebook and other social media giants like it. For example, Facebook played a huge role in supporting the spread of misinformation leading up to the 2020 election. But unfortunately, Facebook did not update its algorithm until October 2020– it was much too late at that point.

If Facebook had adjusted the site's algorithms earlier, they could have potentially prevented the massive amount of misinformation that was shared leading up to the election.

The social media site has had plenty of issues regarding elections and politics here in the United States. In the past, there has been controversy over how easily one can buy a political ad anonymously. 

The lack of fact-checking by Facebook has allowed for wildly inaccurate content to be shared on its platform. As a result, users tend to interact more with inaccurate posts filled with misinformation.

Both sides of the political spectrum have had issues with Facebook's handling of political speech on its site. Democrats often criticize Facebook for allowing too much information and the company's lax approach to addressing misinformation. 

Conservatives, on the other, have felt targeted by Facebook's blocking of posts and accounts featuring political misinformation. However, these claims have not been supported by research.

You may ask yourself, how do we fix this? Well, it is a big problem with many different aspects to think about. 

First, we can start with Facebook and other social media sites. There needs to be more rigorous fact-checking along with community guidelines that do not support hate speech or misinformation to reduce the spread of information.

Another key factoring to fixing the media environment here in the United States is increasing education about news and how to find information online. Media literacy can be significant to many aspects of people's lives, and it can be taught at home. 

We can also strive to "make social media kinder." We can work to make Facebook and other social media sites like it less hostile. If we can be nicer online, we can be more caring in all aspects of society. 

Social media is destroying democracy, but it has the potential to save it

Emme Bowe

Eb730819@ohio.edu

Illustration by Chad Crowe

While social media may have started to connect with friends and maintain relationships, it quickly transformed into a platform that shares news, encourages political commentary, and launches debates. Conceptually, social media is pro-democracy. It has made a variety of diverse information more widely available, allowing people to become more educated on issues they may not have known about otherwise. It is a forum to give people within our democracy a voice, to amplify the idea of popular sovereignty that America was founded on. People can collaborate on ideas, initiatives, and protests and make meaningful societal changes. The idea behind social media encourages democratic functions; however, the unrestricted voices and algorithms that amplify them can harm the democratic process.

The freedom of voice that makes social media so powerful for democracy has also contributed to the destruction of democratic practices in recent years. Stories shared on social media influence political self-expression, and people seek out information. Algorithms create an echo chamber that reinforces pre-existing beliefs while suppressing other voices, causing users to see only one political perspective while suppressing other sources of information. 

In addition to algorithms limiting political perspectives seen on social media, individual human tendencies further narrow one's worldview and increase polarization. The theory of selective exposure explains that people are more likely to expose themselves to information aligned with their views while avoiding contradictory information. Partisans reject news that shows diverse opinions and only seek out like-minded content, further narrowing the algorithms content sharing and creating an endless cycle of one-sided news. The political echo chamber creates more polarized opinions, hostility towards opposing views, and a more divided democracy. 

Social media is not only causing users to distrust opposing political parties. People have also lost trust in journalism. Attacks on the news media are made from both sides of the political spectrum, and the public no longer trusts news outlets that were once deemed objective. The public is also starting to doubt democracy in itself. When users start believing that the opposing political side is unfounded, it can cause opposition to the democratic decision-making process that allows that side to give their voice. 

Social media has damaged democracy by skewing perceptions, limiting voices, interfering with decision-making, and creating distrust. On the other hand, social media can uplift democracy and be a platform of popular sovereignty. The question is: how can social media save the democracy it has helped to destroy?

First, social media platforms must correct their shortcomings. While platforms cannot be held accountable for what information users choose to read, they can and should be transparent about how their algorithm engines amplify voices and target people. They should also be held accountable for how these engines may spread and lead people to misinformation. 

Social media can save democracy if journalists utilize it strategically and ethically. If news outlets share the truth with fewer biases, users will be less misinformation to internalize and spread to other users. With consistently credible, unbiased sources appearing on social media, users will hopefully see informative but not polarizing information. Journalists can also use the platform to make officials answer to the citizen's agenda. Suppose news outlets listen and respond to what communities want to know about candidates and share that information on social media. In that case, users will be more informed and partake in the democratic decision-making process.

Despite the algorithms, misinformation, and influence of social media projects on users, democracy should not be afraid of these communication platforms. Social media has the power to destroy democracy, but it also has the equal potential to save and enhance it.  

Diversity Within the News Industry

 Danielle Smith

ds006019@ohio.edu

Photo Courtesy of the British Council  

Over the past century, media has played a vital role in advocating for diversity and inclusiveness in life. Still, while they focus on equal representation, they fail to focus on the lack of diversity within their industry. When looking at the demographics that represent members of the news industry, we can find that an overwhelming majority of the industry consists of white individuals. For example, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that non-Hispanic white men could account for 48% of the news industry, which has resulted in the media being one of the least diverse industries in the United States. While this is an issue on its own, it is truly detrimental to the representation of minorities throughout America, as they are heavily outweighed within the media. 

Representation of minorities throughout the news is vital concerning the accuracy and validity of the media. When pursuing a story, it must be analyzed from different perspectives to prevent bias and accurately represent the subject it reflects upon. Without different demographics compromising the news industry, there is no way that it could realistically represent the many different demographics that make up the United States. For this reason, is it crucial that the media focuses on diversity within their industry, or else the lack of equal representation will continue to misrepresent the struggles and sentiments of minorities?

To better represent the sentiments of all Americans, the news industry must analyze all demographics to create a team of diverse individuals that can represent the many different groups that make up America. While race and gender are often the factors that contribute the most to bias within the news, many other demographics, such as age, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender identity, can misrepresent minorities' struggles.

Over the past year, newsrooms have worked to create teams that include a wide range of demographics to represent better the people they are reporting on. For example, an article published by Poynter regarding the recent increase in diversity reveals that, of the many newsrooms surveyed, four out of five employees believe that the more diverse their team has become, the more reflective their stories are. Greater diversity within the news industry allows the sentiments of all demographics throughout America to be represented without bias or ignorance, which is why it is vital to the integrity of journalism.

Diversity in staffing and content are interrelated

Molly Wilson 

mw542219@ohio.edu 

                                                       Photo Courtesy of DNV

Diversity within journalism is a topic that has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. More and more newsrooms have developed diversity teams to diversify content and staffing. Unfortunately, diversity in sourcing, content, and coverage is often separated from staffing concerns, despite the interconnectivity of it all. 

How does the newsroom influence various coverage? 

Newsrooms need to reflect the population they serve. A majority white newsroom may not write or pitch stories that reflect its audience accurately. Seeking out various coverage is a large part of writing inclusive move stories and featuring diverse experiences. However, in a Washington Post article regarding Dove's racist campaign, it was mentioned that a lack of diversity in its staff may have resulted in the campaign running in the first place. Similar things can happen in news coverage when diversity is not prioritized. Journalists can not target diverse content or sources with various backgrounds if they do not reflect their audience. 

Why diversify content? 

Beats are a fundamental part of journalism. However, in covering a beat, reporters may contact the same sources frequently and may fall into a pattern of sourcing that does not accurately represent the population they cover. 

Covering stories without speaking to people with various backgrounds, ethnicities, and experiences does not allow fair or balanced reporting. Additionally, journalists fail to serve their readers when they do not account for a range of experiences in their stories, according to the American Press Institute. Journalists are supposed to produce content and write stories that benefit everyone, not just a particular population. 

Balanced reporting requires journalists to take the time necessary to interview individuals who will provide an additional or different viewpoint to a story. According to the American Press Institute, doing so is essential in reaching new audiences and staying relevant in coverage. 

Ways to diversify content: 

Taking action to keep from falling into sourcing routines is difficult. When journalists talk with frequent sources and are responsive, it is easy to reach out to them. However, journalists need to be active in reaching out to different and more diverse sources with various lived experiences. 

According to the Society of Professional Journalists' website, asking existing sources for other contacts is one way to cast a wider sourcing net. However, speaking with the same people for multiple stories does not allow other people with different experiences or backgrounds to add another angle. Journalists should also go to groups, restaurants, schools, or community events to seek new coverage and sourcing. 

Reporters also need to be aware of and research their publication's coverage history. Journalists need to know what coverage and sources have not been a priority for their publication in the past and actively seek out those stories or people. Reporters should also cover groups and individuals whose publication has been underrepresented. 

No publication is perfect, but our job as journalists is to seek out new coverage, actively diversify newsrooms, and ensure that no groups are ignored.