Kiplinger Fellowship 2022 : "Global Climate Change Policy and Goals"

Climate change became a matter of grave concern around the 1950s, and the scientific community started to unite to do something about it around the 1980s. However, it wouldn't be until 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, that anything was done about climate change globally. Climate change is a severe issue that does not have the amount of coverage it deserves, especially on the global scale.

Image Source: Quartz 

 

I attended the very last lecture held during the Kiplinger Fellowship, where Sara Schonhardt talked about reporting on climate from a global perspective. Schonhardt is an alum of Ohio University and now works for E&E News, reporting on climate issues from an international position. She emphasized how climate change needs to have more global coverage because it is a story without borders; it will affect every country and community. She also said that no matter what news you are looking at or reporting, there is always a climate aspect. However, climate change is (mostly) only brought up on a global scale during the United Nations Convention on climate change (COPS) and the UN science reports by the IPCC. This coverage needs to be more thorough, and Schonhardt had a few ways that this could occur.

1. Follow the money

There is a money aspect to it with anything you are covering. Schonhardt emphasized this, asking news sources to look for who will pay for the change that climate change needs, where the money is coming from, and who has been the most impacted by climate change. She also mentioned how more prosperous countries are not paying for the things that climate change needs.

2. Show ripple effects.

As with many things, climate change has a huge ripple effect. Schonhardt said to follow this ripple effect and how climate change has affected people around the world. 

Those are only a few methods that Schonhardt pointed out regarding how climate change could receive more global coverage. One other thing that she talked about that I found extremely important was how, while we are starting to see more coverage about this in the United States, there needs to be more emphasis on the U.S. level. With the election of President Biden, there has been a new target goal for the United States's battle with climate change to achieve a 50-52% reduction in greenhouse gas pollution. President Biden also rejoined the U.S. in the Paris Agreement, a "...legally binding international treaty on climate change..." to limit climate change to below 2 degrees Celsius.

Image Source: Oil Change International

Climate change is not just happening to one country or city; it is a global problem that needs worldwide coverage. This coverage needs to include all voices in their stories, not just the voices of more developed, Western countries. Schonhardt left the lecture with this: "find the climate angle - it's always there; everything has one."

Playing with People: Attempting to Add Diversity with AI

A gallery of computer-generated faces that are available at generated.photos.

Advertisements must be eye-catching to make a difference. Because of this, firms are constantly searching for new ideas, new resources, and new people. But unfortunately, software engineers have found a way to help the latter, so you fear it. 

Cheap labor is always sought after because it saves companies money and allows for allocating funds elsewhere. Without the need for actors and models, companies save money with casting, makeup, costuming, payment, and potential royalties. However, with the introduction of AI models and actors, we begin to see what some may see as a dystopian reality.

"The AI software used to create such faces is freely available and improving rapidly. AI allows small start-ups to create fakes that are so convincing easily they can fool the human eye," writes Drew Harwell in an article from the Washington Post.

The worst part about this new introduction of software is the ability to feign diversity without having to hire real diverse actors. "The site allows anyone to filter fake photos based on age (from "Infant" to "Elderly"), ethnicity (including "White," "Latino," "Asian," and "Black"), and emotion ("Joy," "Neutral," "Surprise"), as well as gender, eye color, and hair length," Drew Harwell found.

There is no prize to be won for inclusion, but this especially deserves no recognition. The push for diversity within ads is not only for representing the audience but also for bringing more diverse backgrounds into the industry and keeping them employed. But unfortunately, we are creating just as much of a boundary by removing real people. 

While we think it could be easy to spot these fake people, it proves to be more complicated than most think. YouTubers create challenges to see if you can spot the fake versus natural person side-by-side, as seen in the video below. There are also instances of influencers who are entirely fake yet still followed by millions.

While there can be many positives to integrating AI people in media, I feel this can easily fall into dangerous territory. The more we move to remove real-life humans from our ads, the more unrealistic our expectations for life become. Young people who already struggle with the photoshopped images of models will be exposed to images they don't know are pretend and may suffer because of it.

Doing Better as Journalists in the Technological Age

 By Ethan Bloomfield

eb348519@ohio.edu

Courtesy Joelle L.

The biggest problem facing the world's privacy is, of course, big tech. The fact of the matter is that, while it used to be, total surveillance on a massive scale is not a dream anymore. While people tend to value their privacy, this reality was built and reinforced willingly with avenues of entry such as social media, smartphones, and innovative home technology that can sell your data for profit and ease of marketability. As journalists, we essentially have two options: submit to such a reality and cooperate with it (or even use it to our advantage) or fight against it. 

Fighting on behalf of the people is what journalists do. As watchdogs, we are supposed to keep people in power accountable. If those in power do any misdeeds, we must bring them to light. For example, this article by BBC outlines how the New York times exposed Facebook's lies about privacy and selling data. That is how it should be. In a perfect world, the corrupt and power-hungry would be kept in check, and the people could use their leverage to make a change if there was a problem. 

Additionally, we are to uphold the truth according to our ethics codes and the values of our organizations. Advancements in technology make capturing or obtaining video, audio, and documents much more manageable, incentivizing questionable behavior. Publications like TMZ routinely show off and often sensationalize very private information for profit, which we know of. 

However, the way forward with such powerful tools as new technology is not dubious. Tech makes journalism easier, as we can search much harder in far shorter amounts of time. It also makes journalism far more wide-reaching, as people can look at news websites at any level from anywhere in the world. The problem is when tech is used for dubious purposes like mass surveillance or data collection. 

Journalists have access to tools unseen by even just the generation before them. According to Pew Research, trust in news media has fallen to almost all-time lows for many Americans. It is imperative to build trust with the People by shying away from using these tools in a way that is (or even seems) misaligned with traditional ethics in the field. We must use our tools to press tech companies, politicians, and those that uphold these power structures to do better. 

How big data impacts society

Maya Morita

mm294318@ohio.edu

Big data is defined as collecting large amounts of information through internet sites, social media sites, etc. That allows sites to track their visitors and gather demographic and psychographic information. However, there are a variety of issues that accompany this data collection.

One complication that arises with data is the lack of knowledge surrounding it. Companies often lack educated professionals to handle data. According to the article "Top 6 Big Data Challenges" by Xenonstack, "companies fail their big data initiative, all thanks to insufficient understanding. Employees might not know what data is, its storage, processing, importance, and sources." Ultimately, corporations that intend to use data need to ensure there are skilled professionals to ensure it is appropriately used.

Another significant issue surrounding data is the lack of security. It is not uncommon for data breaches in websites to expose personal data information for thousands of people. For example, the article "Biggest Data Breaches in History" by Techjury lists the most impactful data breaches that occurred on vastly used websites. In addition, the article discusses Yahoo's data breach in 2016 and exposed records from three billion accounts. That included full names, birthdates, emails and passwords, and security questions/answers. 

Politicians have begun to utilize this data to sway voter opinions. For example, in the article "How Politicians are Misusing Big Data for Their Gains" by Analytics Insight, the author states, "polarization is not just polluting the system, it paralyzes fair political methods. Demographic data have made it easier for campaigns to target their base instead of appealing to a broad swath of voters." This data usage has eliminated traditional campaign strategies and has created an enormous gap between political parties.

This data has begun to enter the journalistic world as well. However, it is not the best source of information. According to the article "How is Big Data Technology Impacting Journalism" by What's New in Publishing, journalists have begun to publish this data without context or information. That ultimately contradicts the journalistic principle to inform the public. 

Big data has imposed a multitude of challenges throughout society. However, this can be solved with education by companies, politicians, journalists, and even consumers. 

 

Technology in journalism: damaging or valuable?

Emma Dollenmayer 

ed569918@ohio.edu 

Photo provided by CNN

One of the primary ethical values of journalists is to minimize harm, and to do so, journalists and the media must remain respectful to the victims they are covering. 

When drones were first introduced as a new technological device that would assist in journalistic reporting for events that may not traditionally be "safe," reporters alike had good intentions. However, using drones to retrieve coverage from events such as natural disasters and protests only promotes parachute journalism while simultaneously invading victims' privacy. 

The usage of drones in journalism is still a relatively new concept. The new technology was introduced in 2011 and has since been a progressive way of reporting for retrieving data and photojournalists. The problem is that the public doesn't trust drone usage. Global Investigative Journalism Network stated, "With their annoying buzz and invasive tendencies, criticisms of drones resemble the weaknesses of news media to sensationalize and intrude." 

Again, the usage of drones directly relates to parachute journalism because the reporters can utilize footage from a different angle in which the reporter is not directly seeing the ramifications of events associated with trauma. 

Drones aren't the only new technological device that has changed journalism and how the public receives and processes it. Virtual reality devices raise the same questions drones do: can they be trusted? 

In addition to minimizing harm, trust is a vital value for journalists. 

International Journalists' Network reports, "Now that misinformation is increasingly a problem for the media industry, the challenge for VR journalism is to prevent dishonest organizations and individuals from producing fake VR work and passing it off as real." 

We have learned in ethics that the average citizen is often unable to decipher between trustworthy news and fake news. That is simply because the public doesn't take the time to look more into where the information is derived. If the average individual is introduced to VR and AR, a specific individual is physically and explicitly stating what could come across as factual information. So, how will journalists ever work to gain the public's overall trust with so many distrustful external forces? 

Again, though, a lot of times, the intentions of these journalists are well-meant. Given "the makers of 'Clouds over Sidra,' the much-discussed VR piece produced by the United Nations" (Mehendale), intended to evoke empathy from those using immersive journalism to understand a refugee camp better, the journalists strayed from what journalists are supposed to do, and that is report facts. Instead, they began orchestrating factual information to make the experience more dramatic. 

Though different technological advancements have positively impacted the journalism community, it also carries a lot of negatives as it has continued to give the public a reason to question whether or not the profession is ethical, trustworthy, and transparent. So, maybe, the answer is to return to the basics, and therefore, respect and trust will come with time. 

Considering the Ethical Implications of Big Data

    Madelaine Fisher

    MF909217@ohio.edu

Image courtesy of Pixabay

In 2017, data surpassed oil in economic value – and the tech giants who have the rights to that data are few and far between. Instead, companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta are raking in billions of dollars at rapid rates compared to big oil, and they are grossly unregulated. 

We have already seen the effects when data gets into the wrong hands. For example, the Netflix documentary "The Great Hack" explains how in the 2016 presidential election, Cambridge Analytica wrongfully used Facebook data. The UK-based company micro-targeted persuadable voters in U.S. swing states with "weapons-grade communications tactics," directly resulting in Donald Trump winning the race. Cambridge Analytica used the same tactics on a global scale, influencing the outcome of Brexit and elections in Trinidad and Tobago, among others. 

The Cambridge Analytica scandal is just one horror story about data misuse. There are thousands of data points available about every internet user. If big data goes on to be unregulated, our data could continue to be used to manipulate us past the point of any ethical line. Tech corporations know everything about us, from our routines to our interests, locations, mental health, and more than we could imagine. Since tech companies can legally sell their data to third parties, there is no telling who could have access to our personal information.

While mass amounts of attention are called to when our data is used in elections, that same data is used every day for online advertisements. In 2016, according to The Economist, "Google and Facebook accounted for almost all the revenue growth in digital advertising." The structure of the ad space is rapidly changing, and big data is responsible. As ads become more targeted and these tech giants continue to grow, we must question the ethical lines between hyper-specific targeting, behavior prediction, and manipulation. 

One solution proposed to end data misuse, also from "The Great Hack," is the individual ownership of one's data. If individuals owned their data, they could then decide whether to sell it or keep it private. That concept has been referred to as "data rights," Many believe that data rights are the new human rights. Though there is no legal right to privacy in the U.S., with the invasive and secretive nature of what data collection has grown into, data privacy is a conversation that should be considered. 

The Power of Protests

Max Wolter 

Max Wolter

MW050119@ohio.edu

On May 25th, George Floyd was murdered by a police officer in Minnesota. The death of George Floyd added to all the chaos that was apparent in 2020 and inspired millions around the world to march for black pride. Hundreds of protests erupted in America, and journalists scurried to capture their messages. Countless pictures of the protests were posted in newspapers, journals, and online articles. Photos from the rallies are powerful, moving, engaging, and inspiring; however, some of these pictures harm the people in the images. According to our class readings, business owners identified their workers in photos covering the protests and firing them. Some people recommend journalists blur the faces of people in rallies and marches. 

Photo courtesy of KUT

Yes, blurring the faces of protestors in photos will protect their identities; however, this would take away from the impact of rally photos, and protestors do not march in public to protect their identities. Protestors thrust themselves into the limelight when protesting. Protestors march together to march for their cause and get coverage as a group supporting one another. If journalists were to blur their faces and hide their identity, it would take away the protestors' pride of being seen standing up and marching for their cause. Blurring the faces of protestors marching also can take the value and impact away from the photo.

 

Pictures of protests can be very moving, sentimental, and powerful because our faces capture so much emotion. Sometimes those faces define the image and are crucial to the story. 

Everyone and anyone can be a protestor. Seeing people's faces while they protest can cause sympathy towards that group. Blurring the faces of marching protestors makes them look criminal and non-relatable. Journalists need to humanize The photo as much as possible when posting about controversial events.

We have to change the way journalists cover marches and protests. According to Kendra Pierre-Louis, media and broadcasts are covering these functions of democracy as nuisances. These parties are trying to make a statement and be heard by America and our government. Journalists have to focus on the message these groups are risking themselves and their jobs to convey. If journalists are constantly racing to report all of the problems marches are causing, no one will care about the meaning of the rally in the first place. It can be challenging to cover protests; however, journalists must take the extra steps necessary to be ethical in their reporting.

How Virtual Reality Will Change the Future of Journalist

Mackenzie Phalen 

mp309018@ohio.edu 

Virtual Reality consists of several aspects; it is a computer-generated environment, including objects and scenes that seem to be accurate. The environment is perceived through a headset known as a "Virtual Reality Headset" or "Helmet." 

The ability to experience a reality you do not live in allows people to be persuaded and educated about things occurring in the world. Before researching this topic, I was unaware of just how beneficial VR can be for journalists. According to Vice, "The award-winning filmmaker and journalist have twenty years of reporting experience, but within the last decade, she's found a powerful storytelling method in an unexpected place: eschewing print, television, and even the Internet, de la Peña believes virtual reality is the most powerful storytelling method at modern media's disposal"(Mufson).

Think about an incident, such as something similar to George Floyd's death. Now think about if the tragic incident wasn't captured on video; seeing what occurred allows people to interpret and understand what occurred. A video released by Vice included a reenactment of a fight that occurred in real life through Virtual Reality. The creator could almost recreate the scene, from the environment, what the people looked like and what they said. Below is a photo of what was just described. 

Photo from Vice 

Virtual Reality is a new form of storytelling where you are immersed in an entirely new environment. However, some journalists worry that VR will take over their job due to the potential shift from reading written work to watching something through a headset. I know that purchasing a product can be daunting if you don't know what it will be like. Virtual Reality is being used to promote products; something that I watched recently was created by Haagan- Datz to save the bees. It was an interactive virtual reality sequence of a bee flying around talking to you. That advertises the brands' values, but it also connects the brand through the interactive aspect. That acts as a new form of advertising. According to Youtube, Directed by Jason Zada, "The Extraordinary Honey Bee' lets you experience a world that impacts you more than you know. What will you do to help save the honey bees."

Technological improvements and their impact on news and information journalism.

As we round out the first quarter of the 21st century, the impact of changing technology on our lifestyles, media, and democracy is becoming increasingly jolting. Of course, the "advancement" of civilization and the resultant societal changes are not unique phenomena. They have been happening for millennia. However, various changes to daily life are happening more and more rapidly, creating a general sense of confusion within society and a need for adaptation among many of the institutions of our society, including the media. 

As was mentioned in Ravi Somaiya's 2019 article "The Junk Cycle" in the Columbia Journalism Review, present-day journalism seems to interact with social media regularly and in a predictable pattern. News organizations chasing the interest of online readers often publish a story about a trending post on social media without first considering the story's newsworthiness. Does the virality of a misleading political post or meme demand the attention of massive national news companies? In a media environment, except for the prestige name like The New York Times or the Washington Post, most readers are hesitant to trust any news source. Of course, therein lies the crux of the issue: people can't seem to trust smaller media anymore. Many media consumers seek out the mainstream media response to viral content because they feel like that is the only source of information they can trust. I admit this is something I am guilty of as well. 

Somaiya details the five distinct stages of mainstream media coverage, the most interesting to me being stage three: the blame game and stage five: what this all means. Without fail, following the publication of stories related to the content (in Somaiya's example, a slowed-down video of Nancy Pelosi and an insinuation that she was intoxicated), the mainstream publishers seem to reach a point of finding fault with every step of the process. This kind of thing wouldn't happen with proper censorship on social media. Because of the algorithms designed to make people angry, anything but their involvement in boosting interaction with the post. The final stage is related to the third stage when solutions are offered. How does spot fake news, understand deepfakes, how targeted advertisements work, and what is the future of AI? To be clear, I think this information is valuable to the public and have no problem with it being published. But the cycle of social media interaction is exhausting. 

So, if mainstream media can refrain from reporting stories that aren't newsworthy, they can maintain their value as a source of media. But why are they so valuable? Because of the access to publishing, anyone, including people like Paris Wade and Ben Goldman, can access the internet and social media. They appeal to politically conservative media consumers' emotions to attract engagement and make money. There is so much fake news out there that it can be hard to know where to turn, so many consumers feel more comfortable getting their news from a more established source, even if a smaller publisher is reporting 100% factual information. The apparent problem is a lack of diversity, and a majority of trusted information comes from corporate-sponsored, corporate-owned media, 90% of which has been consolidated among six companies. 

 

            image source: slideplayer.com

The threat that the consolidation of media poses to democracy is concerning. If our most trusted sources of information are all controlled by companies worth billions and trillions of dollars, the purity of our news does come into question. For this reason, ethics in journalism is paramount to the future of the US government. Suppose each journalist and editor, from the street to the c-suite, is committed to the well-documented ethical values of journalism. In that case, we can still have the successful delivery of truth to consumers. It sounds almost like a fairy tale, but options seem to be limited at present.