Social Media: A Journalist's Ultimatum

Thomas Garverick
cg701315@ohio.edu

When you make the decision to become a journalist, you relinquish the right to always speak your opinion. The key word there is always because in the last decade, social media has changed the way that journalists go about doing their job -- what they can and cannot say about certain topics.

News organizations like "The New York Post" claim to have the right to force you to take a neutral approach. Should  news organization have this type of control over journalists?

I thought this quote was extremely interesting from Dan Kennedy in the article called "In defense of Neutrality: Why News Organizations are Right to Crack Down on Social Media".

"If someone tells you that they have no opinion, even on serious issues, that they are totally objective and that they also never make a mistake, you would probably think they are either a liar or a sociopath. And yet that is what social media polices are asking people to believe."

When you put it like that, I think its crazy that some news organizations feel that way -- whether its for you to not take a personal stand at all or that you have to make a whole entire new policy that reflects their standards.

Sports and news have two different approaches to this -- in sports, its generally accepted for commentators to give their opinions, where as in news, a reporter would be scene biased.

I want to talk about a two cases involving sports and news, but with two different outcomes.

Tweeting Has led to Unemployment 

Colin Cowherd was fired at ESPN for a racially offending tweet,
but quickly found a home with FOX Sports.

Colin Cowherd was once one of the most, if not the most, prominent radio host on ESPN. That all changed with one tweet questioning the intelligence of Dominican Republic, who make-up a large portion of the Major League Baseball community. 

Yes, the tweet came off offensive, but Cowherd did have statistical data in front of him to backup his somewhat harsh clams that the country's economy and educational opportunities hurt them. 

Cowherd however, was fired just two days later. 

He had worked with the company for ESPN for 12 years. 

ESPN has a strong relationship with the MLB, who was not happy about his comment. So based off of one tweet, his organization chose a company over him after over a decade. 

Tweeting can be a slippery slope. 

Roles Reverse, but Different Outcome 

Everyone knows who LeBron James is and the kind of impact he's had as an athlete in the NBA, but off the court too. 

Laura Ingraham angered many African-American athletes for
attacking LeBron James about his comments on Donald Trump.

Laura Ingraham, a TV host for Fox News, didn't seem to care for James. She went on record saying that James should "shut up and dribble and refrain from talking about politics because she didn't need advice from someone getting paid $100 million to bounce a ball." 

So now a news reporter coming out and attacking an athlete. Fox News never punished her for her remarks on James -- if anything, it grew her brand. 

Ingraham to this day is still at Fox News. 

LeBron has since built a school for less fortunate kids in Akron. 

It's crazy to me that Cowherd, a 12-year veteran at ESPN could lose his job over one tweet, but Ingraham can go toe-to-toe with an athlete and get nothing. 

Again, it all goes back to what these organizations believe in. ESPN supports the MLB, and Fox News chose to support their employees attacking of athletes. 

Social media puts organizations in situations that questions them to their core. 

Social Media has Forced Journalists to be Transparent

Dan Justik
dj204915@ohio.edu

Over the past several years, the profession of journalism has been forced into making some critical changes. For the most part, the key component of creating change in journalism has been the rapid growth of social media. It has forced media organizations to change how they post their pieces, but it has also changed how open journalists are about their stories.

The one biggest change in journalism that social media has created is having more transparency from the journalist to the readers. As readers become more connected to stories than ever before, social media has allowed them to call out the reporter for mistakes or fundamental errors in their stories.

Instead of buying newspapers or watching the news, social media has become the main source of news for the average American adult. Not only can a citizen find their news on social media, but they can also interact with the reporter or writer of the story.

Courtesy of Pew Research Center

Before social media, it was extremely difficult for a reader to get in touch with the writer of the story. And even if a reader was able to contact the writer, the writer seemingly had no obligation to respond, or even acknowledge what that reader said to them.

But with social media and everybody being able to see what someone says, there are times that journalists almost have no other choice but to respond with their readers. If a journalist is called out on social media for an error or a mistake and refuses to acknowledge it, there is a good chance that the journalist will lose some credibility.

The threat of losing credibility on social media has caused some major publications to create pieces in order to show how a story is put together. One publication that showed how they broke a news story was The Washington Post, who created a video with the journalists who broke the story about a politician allegedly sexual assaulting teenage girls in his past.

With the rise of people believing that any story is 'fake news,' a journalist being transparent on social will discredit any person that calls their story 'fake news.' By explaining how they gathered their information and pieced the story together, it will show that the story is full of facts that were responsibly researched.

Before social media, it was expected that a journalist would not share how a story was researched with the public. But today, there are media organizations that are saying in their ethics handbooks how a story was out together. In NPR's social media ethics handbook, it is mentioned how journalists should be open about their processes for reporting and editing with social media.

The threat of losing credibility due to social media has forced journalists to be open about how they put their stories together. Even if the journalist does not want to share their process, several major media organizations want them to show the readers the process in writing and reporting on a story. If it weren't for the growth of social media, journalists would not be held as accountable for their stories as they are now.

The Journalist-Community Dynamic: An Important New Age Principle

By: Elise Hammond
eh233614@ohio.edu

The question that journalists are trying to answer in today's digital landscape is what are the best principles of journalism? Are they the same as they were twenty years ago? Should they be? And if not, how should they change so that important core values are not sacrificed?

The answer is that journalistic core values should stay the same.  The ideals that make journalism what it is -- like truth, accuracy, and integrity-- should always be applied, but the principles and code that details how to apply these values needs to change with the times. As the way journalists tell stories adapts, so should the practical and instructional applications of journalistic values.

Community as a Principle

One principle that is changing with journalism is the idea of community.  The way journalists value and use the community needs to change in two ways.  First, the community needs to become more aware and responsible when interacting with news.  It is their responsibility to be informed and realize when news is ethical and when it is not.  Journalists also play a role in this dynamic.  It is their job as professionals to distinguish themselves and their decisions as ethical.  In a world where anyone can make and post news, this dynamic between the community and journalists in regard to knowing and creating ethical content is important.  It is the foundation that will lead to credibility and trust long-term: something the news business has been working hard to establish.

Courtesy: sciencemag.org

The second way the principle of community is changing is in how it relates to "minimizing harm."  In The New Ethics of Journalism, the authors argue in the older set of principles minimizing harm was its own section.  But in the new set, it falls under the larger umbrella of engaging the community.  This is a significant shift because the language used in the principles reflects a change in the relationship between journalists and their community.  Journalism today needs to engage their audience.  The original principles were written with a sense distance between journalism and the community, when in reality, there is no distance.  Journalism and the community are intertwined because anyone can publish content online.  With things like crowdsourcing and social media, the line between journalists and the people they serve is not as distinct as it used to be.

Minimizing Harm

The difference between professional journalists and people posting online is the principle of minimizing harm.  The practice of thinking about the consequences of publishing a story is a principle that is only required of professional journalists.  It is a principle that professional journalists should follow regardless of how stories are being told.  Citizens have no obligation to consider the value of minimizing harm.

The relationship between journalists and their community is critical.  Both the community and journalists will benefit from a practice of transparency and engagement.  Prioritizing community as a principle of ethical journalism in the new age will lead to credibility and trust.  If journalists are producing news in ways they can explain and defend, therefore being transparent, ethical decision making will be easier.  When journalists are actively working to be transparent with their community, they are considering alternatives to minimize harm.  When they are faced with an ethical dilemma, they will already know how to act.  While being transparent, they have thought about decisions they have made so far, who they affect, and how their community feels.  A healthy journalist-community relationship will benefit both parties.

Journalists are NOT the Enemy of the People

Gillian Gonder
gg346916@ohio.edu

What is fake news and why are we obsessed with it?

The term 'fake news' has been around since the 1800s--it is also called propaganda, yellow journalism, conspiracy theories, clickbait, and so on. Fake news is false information that has been spread by accident or without fact-checking sources, such as in the Dan Rather and Mary Mathers scandal involving the Killian Documents, in which CBS went under fire for publishing document without checking the credibility of the source.

Fake news has been around since news has existed, but in recent years, it has become sensationalized. Donald Trump so frequently tweets about and comments on fake news and unethical journalism that it has become a major point of interest and focus. Trump's heavy use of the term 'fake news' became a rallying cry for right-wing supporters during the 2016 election. Trump has so openly expressed disdain for news companies that he nicknamed the press the "enemy of the people."

It is widely known that Trump dislikes the New York Times, but even so, NYT publisher A.G. Sulzberger accepted an off-the-record meeting with him to discourage him from labeling reporters the "enemy of the people." Sulzberger remarked that calling the press the "enemy of the people" is harmful and has led to a rise in threats and violence towards journalists. Sulzberger also warned that calling reporters this harmful phrase is "undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and...eroding one of our country's greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press."

One example of this rise in violence against the press is the Annapolis shooting. The Capital Gazette had previously published an article about Jarrod Ramos, the primary suspect of the shooting, detailing his harassment of a woman from high school. From this point on, Ramos openly despised the newspaper, and attempted to debunk the article written against him, claiming that it defamed him. His open disdain for the paper led him to shoot and kill five employees working in the newsroom.

While Trump continues to call the press the enemy of the people and continues to express disapproval for news organizations who do not agree with his views and opinions, Ivanka Trump has taken a different stance. In an interview with the New York Times, Ms. Trump did say that she shares some of her father's issues with the media, but did not condemn journalists. In this interview, Ms. Trump "became the lone senior administration official to publicly say that she did not share the president's view."

Following this interview with the New York Times, Trump said in a tweet that Ivanka "correctly said no" that the news media are the enemy of the people, directly going against previous statements that reporters are the enemy. He finished the tweet saying that "FAKE NEWS, which is a large percentage of the media...is the enemy of the people!"

Courtesy of The Daily Dot

Trump's disdain for news outlets is largely centered around organizations that are left-wing or that do not agree with his actions and beliefs. He seems believe that any news outlet that is somewhat against him publishes fake news.

On that note, it is the job of journalists to publish accurate information. Journalists must learn to handle criticism--no matter what, the left, the right, and the middle will have differing opinions and there will always be negative feedback, but it is the ethical responsibility of journalists to provide readers with news that has sources and that he been fact-checked, whether it is published on a website, posted on social media, or tweeted by a reporter.

Journalism is a job, not a war.

The Politics of Bias

Helen Horton

hh157115@ohio.edu

Today, more than ever before, journalists are being asked to uphold standards of truth, transparency and objectivity. These morals are challenged every day with notions of fake news, calling the media "the enemy of the people", and more. And with the rise of the Internet, journalists are now having to take those standards and apply them in a fast-paced, technology-based world without being called liars and deceivers.

So is it possible for journalism to be completely truthful and bias-free? Theoretically, yes. But does it work like that in day-to-day life? Not quite.

An article from WGBH argues that news organizations have the right to enforce social media rules for its content creators, stating that, "Providing tough, fair-minded coverage is a discipline that is undermined once you disclose your own biases. It's not just that your audience's view of your work changes; it's that you change too."

A key factor that all successful (and respected) journalists have in common is that they are relied on for neutral and accurate coverage of politics. Once that reliability is lost, you’re toast. We discussed in class about journalists throughout history that are now talked about for their lies rather than their major accomplishments: Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and the like. These people's reputations have been tarnished because they either lied, cut corners, or forgot to fact-check.

A scene from a movie on Stephen Glass's ethical stunt, Shattered Glass, exposes the moment Glass's lies came to surface.

More often than not, those who commit these offenses tend to overshadow the good work done by honest and diligent journalists who make objectivity their lifeblood.

Yet Matt Taibbi claims in a New York Times article that objective journalism is an illusion. He says that, “Opinion can’t be extracted from reporting. The only question is whether or not it’s hidden.”

Which ties into to the notion of bias in political media.

A major argument that I see thanks to today’s political climate is the pitting of Democrat and Republican media consumers against each other due to each other’s “bias.” While it is true that many media outlets may have an inherent bias, the bias is not put there to do harm to the opposing side.

Source: Pew Research Center

With the advancement of technology and the Internet, we can customize our news sources to hear what we want to hear— not what's being spewed out of a general entertainment source. Critics argue that this tailoring tends to narrow people's worldview, making them even more biased. In my opinion, the customization of news isn't harming others because of its bias, but enlightening them.

So whose reporting is trustworthy with these tailored news sources? It's likely based on familiarity.

Taibbi opened his last paragraph in the Times article with this: “We live in a society now where people want to know who a journalist is before they decide whether or not to believe his or her reporting.” And that, to me, speaks volumes.

Source: Pew Research Center

According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of people trust their local news sources because they are familiar. They know the same people you know, they live in the same area you do, they are affected by the same things you are. So why not get to know more about someone before you believe what they say?


At the end of the day, bias is going to exist no matter what. We can keep it out of our essays and articles as much as we want, but it’s an inevitable human element. The opinions of others matter in this global world we live in today. Different points of view are great tools to have in any conversation because they open up avenues for problem-solving, empathy and overall communication. As long as the bias is not obstructing any truthful facts, then it is harmless.

Journalism Today: Is It Unethical to Put Our Opinions on Social Media?

Julia Gogol
jg152015@ohio.edu

Journalists using social media platforms to voice their personal opinions has long been an issue discussed by newspapers and the public alike. With technology advancing at such a rapid pace, do journalists have a right to let their voices be heard?

We all know people read the news from sources they know will tell them what they want to hear. My argument to that is this: if journalists stayed completely unbiased, people wouldn't pick one news source over another. The public would have the facts, not the opinionated truth provided to them by left-wing or right-wing editors.

As journalists, we have a responsibility to give the public the whole truth, whether we agree with that truth or not. People would then be able to form their own opinions and make their own arguments, without being swayed by bias. Journalists are in a unique position.  We are the medium between what's happening in the world around us and the screens in people's hands. We are influencers, and if we post our personal beliefs on social media, we are abusing that power.

Social media for journalists should be used as a platform to showcase your work. It's unnecessary to make comments about whatever tweet or Instagram post you disagree with. If it's something that controversial, give the facts, and I'm sure the majority will nod their heads in agreement.

With "fake news" and distrust of the media being as high as it is, giving the public the unbiased facts is more important than ever. According to a study performed by the Pew Research Center, "Only about two-in-ten Americans (22%) trust the information they get from local news organizations a lot, whether online or offline, and 18% say the same of national organizations."

Journalists today have more opportunities and channels to reach their audience than their previous colleagues could've ever dreamed of. According to the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, "Social media offer opportunities for news organizations to reach more people than ever before.  For young people, in particular, social media news feeds, not news websites, are their major news sources."

Courtesy of ING

On this contrasting survey above, you can see that, while 60 percent of journalists say they should remain unbiased on social media, 66 percent of them also say they express themselves differently on social media than they would on their traditional news platforms.

In regard to political opinions, EthicNet states, "If work in political parties, taking part in demonstrations and solving urgent social issues results or may result in a conflict of interests, raises or may raise the question of objectivity of mass media, it is not acceptable."

If it is unethical for a journalist to participate in a political demonstration, why would posting your opinion on a much more public form of media be any less jeopardizing to the trust of the media?

Journalists need to come to a consensus about whether or not to voice personal opinions on social media. I believe those thoughts are your own and do not need to be posted, Tweeted, Snapchatted, or any of the above. Journalists have opinions, everyone does. But, because of our unique situation and the influence we have over the public, those opinions should remain unvoiced, unheard, and completely our own.

Code of Ethics VS. Fake News

Monday, September 17

Julia Cogliano 

jc493114@ohio.edu 

WHAT IS THE CODE OF ETHICS? 

A Code of Ethics helps balance out the journalism world. There is a guideline that sets a standard for how each journalist should publish things, and give them an idea of what is considered morally right and what is considered morally wrong. However, in the journalism world, a lot of things are neither white, or black, but more in the "grey" area. Code of Ethics gives each journalist the opportunity to create their own ethics. Journalists are trusted by society to publish correct information. The Code of Ethics was made so that each journalist and reader both had an understanding that ethically and morally, only correct, reliable information should be posted to the public. 

OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS JOURNALISTS 

As journalists, as mentioned before, we are trusted to be aware of the Code of Ethics. This is ensuring that we have a clear understanding of how serious our job is to inform the public of morally correct information. That being said, each Journalist needs to have their own understanding of the Code of Ethics. According to Focus more on fighting Bad Journalism, not on Fake news , the article states that journalists should worry about posting real information, instead of posting anything just to seem more trusting or more reliable than another journalist. By having their own understanding of the Code of Ethics, journalists are able to have a guideline of their work to make sure they are publishing correct information to the public, and the public will be able to trust the information is ethically correct. 

WHAT IS FAKE NEWS?

For the past two years, the saying "Fake News," has been on the rise. However, does anyone know what exactly fake news is? How can one source claim that they have factual information, and then another person claim that it is a complete hoax? This ties into Code of Ethics because journalists inform the public, and have a duty to serve the public in an honest way. Readers have the choice to believe each thing they read or hear, and make their own personal decision based on who is giving the information, and what support they have to make the information seem valid. 

HOW CAN WE AVOID FAKE NEWS?

As journalists, we need to make quick decisions. While reviewing an article, we should always look at the sources and see if we agree with the person who is claiming that an article uses reliable sources, and then question if can trust the information being told. We can avoid fake news by making sure that we are posting reliable, true, and morally correct information out into the world. By taking responsibility ourselves, we are ensuring that truthful, reliable, and real  news is being published. However, we can not control what other Journalists post. We can take matters into our own hands by expressing what we feel is morally correct for a Journalist to post, and then checking other Journalists sources and information before we share information on websites such as Facebook. In the article When it comes to the academic study of fake news, "bullshit receptivity," is a thing, fake polls are brought up. Anything on the internet can be as easily fake as it is real. In my opinion, as journalists, the greatest thing we can do to avoid fake news is to make sure we are using sources that we personally trust, to avoid publishing any information with bad support such as fake polls. 

HOW DOES FAKE NEWS AFFECT SOCIETY?

Fake news affects society greatly. Fake news has been around for a while, however within the past few years the saying has becoming known to much more people. Recently, journalists have struggled with gaining the public's trust. Fake news makes readers question which information is true or false, which has the public questioning almost every article until they do their own research and make their own opinion. 

Picture Courtesy of Medium.com 

https://medium.com/@PsychBehind/psychology-behind-fake-news-c5dd4c43d680