How News Organizations Adapt to an Increasingly Opinionated Society

Ciara Sebecke
cs073612@ohio.edu

We live in a world where conservatives accuse the "liberal media" of being biased, but then cite Fox News as a credible and objective source. Those on the left claim that conservatives are imagining a left-leaning bias when almost every news source reaffirms their own beliefs.

Trust in journalism is lower than ever in a world where an obvious media bias is impossible to ignore. Anyone can create a website and call themselves a "journalist," whether they are sharing objective facts or not. The news is written by humans, and humans have opinions, whether they try to hide them or not. But, in an age where so many opinions are shared freely, is that really such a bad thing?

News and Politics Aren't What They Used to Be

In the 2010s, children are taught in schools to celebrate their differences and become independent thinkers. Critical thinking and opinion forming is encouraged, and students have more freedom than ever before to share their own ideas. Being "seen and not heard" is a thing of the past. More and more writers are coming from this generation, and now we are unsuccessfully telling them to stifle their opinions.

Today, social norms are disappearing and the idea of being "normal" has never been so unique. With the legalization of gay marriage, the first African-American president, and general acceptance of cultural and biological differences, America has never before been so open-minded.

The idea of what is polite and what is socially acceptable is constantly changing. No longer are the subjects of "politics, sex and religion" seen as taboo in private conversation. There are so many differing views, and an open discussion is more encouraged than ever.

If having a strong, educated opinion and openness to new ideas are so encouraged in society, why should we tell our news media to go against the trend?

Source: https://texaslynn.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/lmb-ybysa-benghazi-accountability/

Why a News Bias Is Inevitable 

Readers prefer, and subsequently share, content that shares their own biases and opinions. This means that articles with a slight or even strong bias are inevitably becoming more popular. News organizations are going to keep doing what results in the strongest readership and praise, so this trend is unlikely too slow.

People know that the national news giants are not always the first to cover breaking news stories. In the age of the internet, users turn to social media or hyper-local news sources to get the cold, hard, objective facts of an unfolding story. Readers turn to larger publications like the New York Times and Washington Post for something more that they will not find in a story that only contains only objective facts. The public knows that these sources will share an interesting opinion and additional insight on stories that they likely already know the basic facts of.

In today's world, "news" is no longer "just news." The traditional news model is unsustainable in an environment where facts appear online in seconds. No longer are these corporations the gatekeepers of all information. To remain in business, traditional news sources have to offer something extra, and in many cases, that is a discussion or opinion.

As long as writers are transparent and honest about their biases and open to discussion, a biased "news media" is not always evil or unethical. Media literacy is more important than ever with little barriers to entry for citizen journalists, many of whom have strong opinions. Please comment with your opinion below!

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Jacob W. Solether
js282314@ohio.edu

Trust In The Media Is Lost 

No wonder there's distrust in the media when everyday people see patterns and incidents of complete biases. People shouldn't be ridiculed for distrusting what the media reports, especially when stories differ depending on the demographics of who is being covered. There's definitely a double standard in reporting. There are numerous accounts and reasons why people distrust media publications. One is how institutions mishandle the reporting of minorities and people of color. Entire communities have been reduced to statistics. A black man can be labeled a saint or a thug. In the article from The New York Times, it illustrates how after Hurricane Katrina, captions of people were different based on the color of their skin. In the aftermath following the storm, a black boy was labeled as a looter, whereas the white boy was described as searching for food.

Back In The Day 

People used to believe in what the media told them. Following the Watergate scandal, two-thirds of the country trusted the news. Today, only 32 percent of Americans believe in what the media says. This is astonishing since the role of the media is to serve as a watchdog, as well as to protect citizens from "the man." It is the job of the media to inform the public of important matters, and if the relationship between the two is futile, then the country is deep in trouble.

The Blue Check Mark

It's what every person on Twitter strives for. A person that has a blue check mark next to their name, is often perceived as a reliable and credible source of information. It's safe to assume they're very popular and have a large social media following as well, meaning they have great influence. The internet has opened many doors for journalists; another thing the internet has done is welcomed citizen journalists to the world of reporting and storytelling. Today, more than ever before, people can participate in citizen journalism and anyone with a smart phone and a social media account can become a citizen journalist. No longer do people have to get the news from large, distrusted institutions when they can get the story from a citizen journalist who is reporting live from the scene. Perhaps citizen journalism is what can save the relationship between the media and the public.

We're Not Out to Get You, We're Out to Get Information

Raquel Devariel

rd320614@ohio.edu

Curiosity. Probably the most important skill a journalist can have. That little spark is what starts it all. As journalists we seek to find the truth and find information that is viable in certain situations. We act as the watchdogs for society. This role becomes part of who we are and part of our everyday lives.

Seeking to find this truth is what guides us to great stories. Without it, journalists face a stagnant career where they’re stuck reporting things that don’t make changes or impact society.

This characteristic is what sets us apart from other writers. We don’t focus on imagination. We focus on actual facts and events that impact our lives and our community. Therefore, we are bound to have curiosity and make the most out of it.

Reporter, Charlie Savage talked about this on his 90-minute talk held in Morton Hall at Ohio University on October 20, 2016.

He explained how being an English major made him interested in the journalism side of writing. Ever since he can remember, he wanted to be known for doing interesting things, which led him to having a goal to be that guy that people would aspire to be due to the legacy his writing would leave. At the beginning of his career, he started focusing on bringing things to light, which he described as being rewarded.

No stupid question in journalism.
Taken from: http://www.unawe.org/updates/unawe-update-1544/

Thinking like this led him to win a Pulitzer prize, which he achieved through a set of articles he wrote after the period of the 9-11 terrorist attacks in New York. He focused on analyzing the different debates congressed had about the torture ban and how President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, thought that he could break the ban and did.

Savage was the only one to write about this period with a presidential perspective and what Bush was doing with his power. His curiosity gave him a different angle that other journalists didn’t write about. He pointed out facts about Bush’s presidency that also sparked the public’s investigative side.

This was his duty as a journalist.

In order to feed this curiosity that not only journalists have, but other citizens have too, the Hearken projects were created by New Jersey’s newsrooms.

“Hearken projects aim to reimagine how journalists and the public can work together to investigate the issues that communities say matter most to them,” says John Stearns in his article, In Curiosity We Trust: A New Journalism Collaboration is Putting People’s Questions First.

This project concentrates on opening platforms for the public that allow them to submit questions that they are curious about. These question then get voted on and the ones that win are the ones that get answered.

“The Hearken model helps produce stories that are original, relevant and popular,” says Stearns.

This is a perfect way of including our community and letting them know that as journalists, we are advocates of their concerns. This way we get across the message that we are not out to get them, we are out to get the information for them.

Paying for promotion can be ethical, astroturfing is not

Maygan Beeler
mb076912@ohio.edu

As a strategic communication student, I believe there is value in paying for promoted content. I view news organizations, reporters, and others who are influential in my target area as important marketing channels. I don’t see a problem with offering to pay key influencers for reviewing or mentioning my company or product, as long as one significant criterion is met: transparency.

Paying for promotion—and disclosing the deal

In the case of commentator Armstrong Williams, who was paid $240,000 by the Education Department to promote the No Child Left Behind Act, Williams was not transparent with his audience. Once the contract was made known, he explained that he “wanted to do it because it was something I believe in.” This is not enough. If an influencer is being paid by any company or government entity, it is the duty of that influencer to be completely forthcoming about the arrangement.  The audience must be given the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether or not to trust the message the influencer is promoting.

In contrast, BuzzFeed, known for large amounts of native advertising content, warns readers alert enough to check an icon just below the headline if the content is sponsored. This BuzzFeed listicle was created to promote HBO and it’s season three premiere of Girls. Though the disclosure might not attract the attention of every reader, it is present, it is at the top of the story, and it clearly makes known the outlet’s vested interest in writing the story.

Astroturfing

Another transparency issue comes in the form of “online astroturfing,” or establishing fake grassroots campaigns that aim to create the illusion of mass support for a policy or corporate agenda.

In 2011, Big Oil lobbyists created 14 twitter profiles to praise tar sands extraction in hopes of drumming up more support around the practice, or at least making it appear that a significant number of people already to support it. The profiles were discovered to be fake when 15 accounts simultaneously tweeted “#tarsands the truth is out” and linked to the American Petroleum Institute’s web page about tar sands. After further investigation, each of the profiles was found to only tweet positive messages about the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Astroturfing is the antithesis of transparency. It aims to purposely deceive the audience and drive their behavior by creating a false perception that a large number of people support a policy or corporate agenda. This practice isn’t ethical and shouldn’t be used as a form of promotion.

The major difference between the ethical promotion of products, policies or company agendas and non-ethical promotion of these ideas is transparency.  It’s irrational to think lobbying won’t continue, or that companies won’t pay to promote their content. Audiences should, however, expect to be made aware of these transactions so that they can feel comfortable that they have all information necessary to make the best decisions. Democracy is based on trust. If audiences can’t trust the source of their news, our system of democracy is threatened.

Photo provided via theweek.com

Honesty is the Best Policy. Right?

Brea Burks
bb901211@ohio.edu

I should be surprised by how people will sneak around to gain power, but I'm not. As you can see with this election, anyone can run for power and anyone can get their hands on the "right" sources to sound credible enough to trick the public. 

The people who are making fake identities and who are getting paid under the table are blocking people from actually knowing the truth. Then they wonder why you can't believe anything that is put on the internet. We have caught on to the lies that are, unfortunately, being told everyday by "credible sources," which makes us second guess everything that going on in our country.

One thing that keeps popping into my mind is the political campaign going on right now. The debate that happened last night was very interesting. Well, all of them were, honestly. But, I feel as if every point was trying to see which person is more "worse" of a person to become your president. I do believe that news reporters, publicists, companies, etc. are being paid secretively to tell a skewed story of the truth. I also believe that both candidates are now just digging up more horrible information about one another and trying to hide their past so someone can be more fit. 

When we were little kids, we were always taught that “honesty is the best policy.”

I guess the point I am trying to get at is, when has honesty become the absolute lie in today's world?

Photo by: http://quotesgram.com/cartoons-and-quotes-on-honesty/

That question gets tied to the article we had to read about Josh Shaw. According to the LA Times, USC's athletic department’s social media director sent out a six paragraph statement that Shaw saved his 7-year-old from drowning. But it did not take long for news companies to find out the truth in that story.

It later was confirmed by Shaw (less than 48 hours) that the story was a lie. Do you see why I ask such a complex question? Why do you need to lie about something that never happened? I am happy to hear that some news reporters are still checking their sources to make sure a story is true before they back it up with another story stating the same information.

Another article that stood out to me was the story about Armstrong Williams being paid under the table to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB) campaign. He was paid $240,000 to do so.

There are multiple issues with this story. One issue is when does the ethical line come to play? Yes, you might believe in this campaign but do you really need to be paid to discuss it on your outlets? Also, you should always second guess information that you would become more bias to.

We, as journalists, have a certain name to uphold in the industry. However, if certain journalists keep tainting our good name, the audience has no one to trust. I think it’s time to weed out the good and bad journalists and get back to the “good times,” where our audience didn’t have to question every word that we typed on our computer. 

How is this a Thing?

Sarah Blankenship
sb856312@ohio.edu

Information is being manipulated in every single way that people can possibly think of.

I would not consider myself to be a political person, nor would I say I keep up with the political debates enough to understand it all. I'm a busy student and I don't want to waste my time listening to the foolish banter that comes about with the debates.

I pay to come to college at Ohio University to get an education that will better my future, but somehow, everywhere I turn there is talk of how people are trying to trick us. The government, big companies, political candidates and people we are supposed to trust are doing whatever they can to persuade us.

In tonight's political debate, that I only heard because my roommate was playing it loudly in the next room, Hillary and Trump were trying to prove which one of them was less-awful for the position of our country. How is this a thing? What has our country come to?

Provided by The New Yorker 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLxIUthDOoz/?taken-by=newyorkermag

During the last debate before the election, they talked about who had lied more and who's lies were worse. I recall Trump bringing up how something Hillary had previously said in a debate was fact-checked and was proven to be false. In a way he was laughing in her face about it.

An article we were called to read for today spoke of how the Bush administration paid a media commentator to talk about and promote No Child Left Behind. Sure, this is for a good cause but it raises questions on how people in politics gain their power.

This makes me think of how it is said that the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from other countries that don't stand for the same freedoms as the United States.

Like I said, I'm not political, but things just aren't adding up. It doesn't make sense.

I'm not only hearing this from the political debates. In my sustainability writing class we have watched videos and read chapters about how it has been confirmed that the people with power have lied to us. They use their rhetoric to deceive and make their way to the top.

In the film Merchants of Doubt, it talks about how big companies lie and how it works! It took 50 years for people to find out that tobacco products were made to be addictive and for changes to be made. The tobacco companies knew the whole time, lied about it and got away with it. How is this a thing?

I am a journalism student and I like to be informed, but I know that there a lot more people in the world that are more informed than me. I would like to know how things slip past the public and policies are not being changed?

Don't people say we live in the greatest country on earth? Then explain to me how it is so corrupt.

We must learn to be skeptical and critical of the information we read and hear every day.

Credibility vs. Demand.

Vanessa Copetas

vc017013@ohio.edu

Credibility and Demand

It's no secret that in public relations honesty and trust are the most important factors that potential customers of your clients look for. If your message and advertisements are trustworthy, then your product is considered to be as well, and that builds the brand of your client. However, when demands start to outweigh the important of quality and credibility, we are the ones that suffer.

Why does this happen?
According to a recent article we were assigned to read, "Follow the Leader: Ethics and Responsibility," there are a couple reasons why normally credible sources chose to make unethical choices. 1. Internal pressure to reach a type of "goal" or "deadline." 2. Pressure from the competition. 3. No consequences for former unethical decision if the results wanted was created. 4. Fear of disadvantage in workplace.

What do I think about this?
While I agree, these are scary things to think of (no one wants to lose a job or a client to a competitor), what ever happened to being ethical? As consumers, we have been lied to by multiple products for years, and we should value trust for our clients and also for the audience since we have been in their shoes before. Though consumers may think of us as biased since we are working for a specific company, we need them to at least trust us. However, while I would like to think that I, as well as the majority of other public relations majors, would not let a source of authority control my actions, I kept thinking of the Stanley Milgram Experiment. In the experiment, the subject obeyed orders from an authority figure, even when they no longer wanted to participate in the experiment. It is easy for me to say that I would not listen to an authority figure, but as proven in the study, if I was under pressure, I hope that my fear would not be that high that I forget my own ethical decisions.

Hope for the future
Luckily, a study showed that many PR professionals continue to hold ethics higher than the external pressures they could be facing. Another article we read in class, "PR Ethics and Reputation: PR Professionals Are Not “Yes Men” When Pressured to Be Unethical, New Baylor Study Finds," talked about how participants went as far as getting fired or resigning just to follow their values. One professional stated that, " I can’t afford to lose my credibility … As PR professionals, it’s all we have. And if I lose my credibility here, it’s not like I can just go start over with someone else, somewhere else." Another believed that disagreement is normal and is expected to happen and, even if you are speaking to your superior, you should stick true to the ethics that you value.

Reaction
Honestly, although I know the results of the Stanley Milgram Experiment, I was not completely surprised that PR professionals take ethics so seriously. Regardless of if you work for an agency or a specific client, or alone or on a team, you only have your trustworthiness. As I said earlier, consumers are used to being lied to and it is our job to fix that stereotype. We value giving our audience clear, concise and truthful information so if we are missing that, we are missing the most important value of our occupation.













Found on: http://www.nevillehobson.com/2011/09/08/so-what-will-you-do-for-ethics-in-pr/

This is an example of unethical PR, we would never persuade an organization to write badly about a competitor. We focus on ourselves. If we were told to complete this task, many of us would refuse since it does not align with PRSA's values on ethics.