Trolling For #Clickbait

Courtney Smith
cs340114@ohio.edu

Photo Credit : stateofdigital.com

Clickbait
As journalists attempt to keep up with society today, they are faced with all of the new trends in media and more specifically, on social media. In the past, the way to get readers' attention and initial interest in a story was with a creative and enticing headline accompanies with a cohesive lede that made them want to read more. Fewer and fewer readers are clicking on articles or stories just from a creative headline. This doesn't seem to be enough for today's media consumers. Lately, the approach that is being used is clickbait.

Merriam-Webster defines clickbait as, "something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest". In other words, stories are presented with headlines that make readers feel as though they HAVE to click because they want to know the information. The problem with clickbait is that it can be used to trick readers into thinking they're clicking on something that they're not.

Beyond Journalism
Not only is this an issue in the journalism world, but also in the media production world with websites such as YouTube. Accounts are being attacked and made fun of for using clickbait in their video titles. One of the most notorious internet celebrities that uses clickbait in video titles is a YouTuber that goes by the username, "blndsundoll4mj" otherwise known as Trisha Paytas.

Paytas is a 29-year-old based out of Los Angeles, California that began her career as an internet personality back in 2006. She has a total of 2.9 million subscribers on her YouTube channel and has accumulated over one billion views through her various videos.

Paytas has received copious amounts of hate comments on her videos because of the title clickbait that she presents to viewers. For example, Paytas used the title, "A vampire is stalking me (not clickbait)" in a story time video on her channel where she sat alone in her kitchen telling a fictitious story about vampires. Though viewers found this humorous, they began to become upset with the way Paytas utilized her titles just to increase viewership on her videos, thus increasing her paycheck.

Trolling
One of the articles posted for this week discussed using clickbait to "troll" readers. The article discussed how journalists are using clickbait to increase traffic and viewership of their work. This is not a new idea in the journalism world, although it is one that has been developed from other tactics.

For example, the article discussed the idea of slate pitching. Slate pitching essentially refers to an idea that sounds wrong or counterintuitive that is presented by journalists to readers as though it is correct and should be respected. This is a tactic that journalists utilize through presenting headlines such as, "Brunch Is for Jerks". Readers that come across articles with headlines like these feel obligated to click on the article in an effort to understand where the logic is coming from.

The Bottom (Ethical) Line
In order to remain ethical as professionals in the world of journalism, we must refrain from engaging in tactics such as clickbait and trolling. It is our duty to provide readers with accurate information in all aspects of our professional work, including the headlines.

The Problem with Clickbait

Alexandra White
aw946814@ohio.edu

What is "Trolling" Your Reader?

Image from lesliebdigital.com

Internet users across the globe have popularized the idea of trolling, posting negative commentary online (especially on social media platforms) to purposely upsets the people reading these posts. Internet trolls write offensive and hurtful comments to rouse a reaction from readers interacting with a troll's post. Trolls abandon social norms and seek to harm whoever is willing to read their commentary. 

A more mild version of trolling is known as clickbait. Clickbait is "(on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular webpage." It is commonly used among YouTubers.

Fans of YouTube often call out content creators for their use of "clickbait." These fans will claim that YouTubers give their videos scandalous titles that have little to do with the video's content or overdramatize the content in the video. This occurs most often in storytime videos, videos in which a YouTuber shares a story about something that happened to them.

YouTubers are not the only content creators hungry for hits. Journalists are using this same trend in headlines. While some label their stories as opinion pieces, readers argue that these inappropriate headlines purposely mislead the audience.

Journalists often troll their audience by titling stories with headlines which upset the reader. These headlines may increase traffic and general revenue to the story, but, much like clickbait, they are not honest to the article's true intentions.

Why is This a Problem?

Readers distrust journalists who use clickbait as a device to generate interest. When readers do not trust the sources from which they obtain their news, the overall success of news outlets are compromised. Readers will unsubscribe from news organizations, and it can ultimately lead to news sources shutting down completely. 

Journalists should operate under several codes of ethics. Many of these codes hold truth and integrity as the most important values for journalists to have. To operate with journalistic integrity, journalists must be truthful and transparent about the information they reveal in their articles. In remaining honest, journalists should not scandalize the content in their stories. Using misleading headlines opposes these moral principles and the ethical codes of journalism.

Image from Romeltea Magazine

Where to Draw the Line

Journalists who use trolling headlines argue that their stories are opinion pieces, and they can therefore exaggerate their opinions. However, by exaggerating the information in the headline, the journalist obstructs the reader's overall outlook of the article (and possibly the publication) before he/she/they can read it in its entirety.

Headlines are meant to capture the reader's attention. They are not meant to mislead or offend the reader. Evoking negative responses for the sole purpose of gaining attention is not journalistically ethical. Not only is it harmful to the reputation of the journalist, it is harmful to the reputation of the publication for which the writer works.

Writers can draw attention with their headlines in less caustic ways. Headlines with interesting information, a witty or catchy tagline, or a quote can interest readers without offending them.

Clickbait is a tactless and costly way to up the views on a news story, and it compromises the validity of the piece itself.

A Time and Place For Live Streaming

Lindsay Lowy
LL875114@ohio.edu

Live-streaming has just recently became a new element of social media within the last year or so. This new function comes with a set of responsibilities and norms which are still being formed. However convenient this new channel of communication may be, live-steaming has raised questions about privacy and the future of journalism. Communities have begun to hold police, journalists, and each other accountable through the constant watch of a lens.

Facebook Live Gone Graphic

After Instagram came out with their live-stream feature, Facebook followed in it's footsteps to create a similar feature on their website. 

Steve Stephens, 37, live-streamed the murder of Robert Godwin, 74, on Facebook. The content was graphic and violent, leaving no warning for viewers before they began to watch as Godwin was held at gunpoint. Unfortunately, this was just the beginning to this controversy regarding privacy.

Policing the Police

Amongst the murder of Robert Godwin has been multiple videos of police brutality. Diamond Reynolds live-streamed the death of her fiancé on Facebook. Not only was this another death that received viral attention from Facebook Live but, it highlighted an ongoing issue of police brutality that journalists have been covering.

The live stream feature has enabled the public to hold officers accountable for their actions by having video proof. Using live-streaming for citizen journalism has enabled the media to have access to exclusive on-site footage in order to cover more stories than they were before. But, where is line drawn?

Are there certain rights being broken with being recorded involuntarily on a livestream? If so, how does one go about restricting what footage can and cannot be posted?

Livestream Etiquette

There are certain norms that take place on different social media sites. For example, Twitter is known for quick information and entertainment, whereas Facebook is saturated with longer posts about personal life updates and articles. 

Live-streaming should have it's own place and set of norms. By building a site where the main channel of communication is livestream, sites such as Facebook and Instagram won't be interrupted by abrupt violent content.

Future of Livestream

The creation of a livestream-only site is inevitable. Apps such as Periscope have already made strides toward this. I believe this could become an important asset for the journalism community.

The site should have two different type of accounts; contributors and viewers. Anyone could become a contributor and add videos to the site regarding newsworthy content. The viewers could consist of journalists that have to pay for their account. They would receive a background check to verify their career where they then could have access to the content the contributors post. Through this site, live-stream etiquette would be more easily solidified.

Moving Forward

With live-stream being such a new development in media, there is so much more to come. If journalists and communities worked together to use this channel of communication as a strategic tool rather than a social liability, then journalism could become even more accurate and fast-paced than it already is.

Ethical Issues In VR

Claire Klodell
ck464915@ohio.edu


Empathy is the single most important quality for young children to acquire, while they are beginning to perceive the world around them. Without it, we are merely nothing. We serve no purpose. How can we be expected to understand ourselves if we lack the ability to understand each other?

Curiosity

We read books to establish a false reality and put our minds in the place of the characters. Yet, words pressed onto paper can only allow our minds to wander so far. In one of my freshman classes, Professor Eric Williams introduced us to a concept where the audience can be holistically immersed in a scenario. Virtual reality is on the rise, and the potential impact it carries to tell a story is remarkable.

The New York Times hired a group of journalists in the past who were familiar with 360-video cameras to establish “The Daily 360”, which featured one new video a day. The readers were able to look past what their peripheral vision blocks, unlike watching a stationary film. This allowed the audience to gain a whole new perspective on a story, and curate emotions which otherwise would have never been produced with a simple story. Unfortunately, this extension of the New York Times did not last very long.

Virtual reality footage also has the capability to expand in ways which have not even been thought of yet. Especially in this political climate, it is crucial for people to holistically understand both sides of a story before forming an opinion. I feel very strongly that the use of virtual reality will heavily influence the way journalists tell stories. It introduces a completely new format of storytelling which can help an audience better understand a foreign concept. The future of storytelling is now brighter than ever, and I’m not just saying this because it’s through the lens of a VR camera.

Ethical Issues

Michael Madary and Thomas Metzinger, two philosophers from Germany’s Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, wrote their own six-step code of ethics for VR Journalism. “In keeping with the American Psychological Association’s principle of non-maleficence, experiments using virtual reality should ensure that they do not cause lasting or serious harm to the subject,” they write.

According to Madary, “users should be aware that evidence exists that advertising tactics using VR could have ‘powerful unconscious influence on behavior.” A potential downside of holistically immersive virtual reality, is that it can allow for opportunities of intense behavioral manipulation.

A major concern the Virtual Reality Society brings up is the concept of desensitization. Typically, this issue is geared towards games which include violence, especially those where the first person player is a shooter. “Desensitization means that the person is no longer affected by extreme acts of behavior such as violence and fails show empathy or compassion as a result. In some situations, gamers actively seek out this type of scenario for the adrenaline rush and sense of power,” they write.

What Next?

Since virtual reality is constantly expanding, the code of ethics should follow this consistent evolution. In the following link, Ana Serrano discusses the ethical dilemmas of living life inside the bubble of a virtual reality world.  

Trolling

Olivia Cooper
oc140613@ohio.edu
12/5 make-up blog for extra credit

Trolling headline, or opinion?

Ken Davis: kendavis.com/commentary/internet-trolls/

Articles in a technologically advanced era can be deceptive and "troll" readers. Writers will create content with loaded headlines that evoke emotional responses of readers. The goal is to get clicks on a post through a provocative headline. But, like many things in writing and advertising the line can get blurry depending on the situation. It is hard to tell whether the headline is an opinion piece or a trolling piece.

Examples of trolling

When I think about publications that troll readers I think of the magazine Cosmopolitan, crappy blog pages like the Odyssey, and the opinion sections of popular newspapers. Almost every single Cosmopolitan article I have ever read trolls readers. Cosmopolitan likes to play on it's audience's emotions (mostly young women) with their trolling pieces. Popular story lines in Cosmopolitan concern the lifestyles/ social lives of young women and run along the lines of "Why Men Like....." or "Why Tequila is Good For You", etc. Cosmopolitan is one of the more obvious trolling article distributors. More examples of trolling articles can be found on blog pages like the Odyssey and Buzzfeed. These trolling articles are all over Facebook and appeal to all different audiences sparking emotions through articles on anything from politics to beauty and health. These articles are viewed more and more each day thanks to social media. 

Opinion pieces

In an age of media distrust it is hard to tell whether an article is trolling or an opinion. Neutral newspapers and most magazines have an opinion section that doesn't intend to troll, but lines tend to blur. Leah Finnegan, former New York Times opinion section journalist wrote an opinion piece about opinion pieces in her blog Leah Letter called "Opinion: Trolling is not Opinion". In Finnegan's article she discusses the importance of an opinion section in an arguably drab business newspaper. She says the opinion section should not "seek to confirm it's reader's values, but challenge them." Finnegan criticizes editor James Bennet in her piece, saying he loves to troll in the opinion section and has trouble with basics like fact checking and distinguishing between trolling and opinion pieces. She discusses how under Bennet's time as editor the NYT opinion section received record internet attention. But, most of that attention was negative and he would use trolling headlines to get "angry clicks" and basically fire up readers. An example of a trolling piece that was published while Bennet was editor that Finnegan gave was when op-ed writer Erik Prince posted an opinion article online called "Identity Politics are Bad." Prince's whole identity was based on her politics and she is very outspoken about her beliefs. This is considered trolling because the article is made in effort to evoke an emotional response from readers and get them fired up. The article received a lot of shares because people were angry, not because it was a good writing that challenged readers beliefs. 

Why it matters 

As journalists our #1 concern should remaining transparent and to not deceive our readers. Trolling is deceiving and does not serve as a strong base to build readership. For my reputation's sake I would rather have less "clicks" and a lower readership than to troll my readers with crumby trolling or hypocritical articles like Prince. Researched, factual, and challenging opinion pieces are of more value than trolling articles. With the growth of technology and popularity of article sharing online grows it is important to remember to still remain ethical and adapt to technological changes. 

The Troubling T's: Truth and Technology

Emma Toman

et104714@ohio.edu 

The Troubling T's: Truth and Technology 

Cartoon illustration by Tom Fishburne about technology in media. 

As the media world is growing with new technology, the line of truth and transparency is, itself becoming more and more transparent every day. While individually truth and technology are great things that help the media advance and are crucial elements to any news story, combined they can get messy. The media is moving forward with the technology advancements and when they are used to better a story they are extremely helpful, for example 360 videos and VR are great ways to make the audience feel more involved. But, these resources can get tricky in sensitive cases. Media outlets know where to draw the line and say enough is enough, but the mess comes when bystanders get involved and use their own technology. 

A Bystander's Perspective 

Bystanders of news stories often want to help and raise awareness of a situation and let the public know what is happening, especially with controversial cases. Often times, media and press are the bad guys and bystanders are afraid that there won't be accurate coverage of what really happened. While this can be true in some cases, leaving the coverage to the media is probably best. Live streaming on Facebook has been controversial since it was released. Michael Kevin Bautista is a Facebook live-streamer meaning he live streams protests and other newsworthy events and posts them on Facebook. In July of 2016, Bautista captured via live streaming brutal attacks on Dallas police officers during a protest. This video was on Facebook and all over the news, while the coverage was good and needed to be shared, many people thought it was too raw. Publications like Mashable, among others, based articles off the video and discussed the controversy surrounding it. Live streaming and VR often present the question of "how much truth is too much?" and many bystanders don't know where the line of too much truth lies. 

Taking Truth Too Far 

The goal of any news organization is be transparent and deliver the story as truthful as possible. But, where does the line of 'too far' fall? Are graphic videos put up on Facebook to raise awareness about the Black Lives Matter movement too far? What about police brutality? The issue falls in what the media was going to cover versus what happened. As journalists, we have to ask is this too graphic? Should the video not be published with the story? Will people be more offended if the video is published and it is too graphic or if it isn't published and pieces of the story are left out? When publishing stories we also have to watch the privacy line as well. Where does that fall? Publishing videos of people being beaten or killed in a protest is a violation of privacy for the victim as well as the families involved. But, if the video allows the public to have a better sense of the story should it still be published? 

The line falls where the SPJ ethics code places it. Keeping the public informed, truthfully, and respectfully. While bystanders often times have the best footage and want to keep the public informed about current events, it is important to take a step back and let the media handle its job. 

A Virtually New Ethical Challenge for Journalism

Alexis McCurdy
am447915@ohio.edu

Photo courtesy of theguardian.com

In an era where information is so easily disseminated with the click of a button, stories are able to edited at anytime, and the public is reading less and less, the journalism industry is falling into trouble.

The current state of the journalism industry is bearing an uncanny resemblance to the era of yellow journalism. Whether it's because of an effort to gain back readers, or raise revenue by increasing click-throughs, sensationalism is on the rise yet again. The usage of sensationalism can be seen through a plethora of venues, such as eye-catching headlines that don't accurately mirror the contents of the story or the facts that surround its core. Or we see the presentation of facts in a heavily skewed way, or lack thereof when "facts" are later revealed to be grounded in falsehoods.

As Katherine Viner critiques in a Guardian article, the shift of news organizations' priority to a consumerist approach is a reflection of the changing fundamental values in journalism.
"Instead of strengthening social bonds," Viner says, "Or creating an informed public, or the idea of news as a civic good, a democratic necessity, it creates gangs, which spread instant falsehoods that fit their views, reinforcing each other's beliefs, driving each other deeper into shared opinions, rather than established facts."

The transition to a digital age, though it brought a decrease in revenue, does not excuse the blatant disregard for journalistic ethics. Journalists must hold themselves to a higher standard than the fake news sites, or the, essentially, gossip blogs that impose great partisanship, grossly oversimplify news and ultimately mislead readers.

Our first priority has and always will be to serve public interest, make society well-informed and provide them with accurate accounts. Journalists are suppose to serve as a watchdog over officials and those high in power. A transition to a consumerist approach to journalism contradicts our commitment to truth and free flow of information. With money on the mind, truth can be greatly overshadowed by the desire to survive.

The internet does indeed bring in a sort of Darwinism ideology to all news organizations: adapt or die. However, trying to increase readership, revenue and click-throughs with sensationalized content is an ethically unsound way to do so.

Perhaps journalists should begin to turn to new methods to engage readers. For example, research has shown that the audience is increasingly responsive to stories with visual aids, such as videos, photos or infographics.

 Damian Radcliffe, research fellow at Cardiff University's School of Journalism, said in a BBC article, that in combatting sensationalism, journalists should turn to creativity in how they present their content. Radcliffe points out that in the era of convergence media, audiences are simply consuming media in new ways.  Finding new and interesting ways to engage the audience visually could deepen the mental connection. 

To incorporate sensationalism and half-truths is laziness. Adaptability to the reader's evolution of digestion of information requires effort-- it requires heavy thought. We need to take pause and reflect. Then, we can move forward and be bold in our search for truth, and innovative in our display. Rather than letting technology be a dividing force that makes us degrade our standards, let us allow it to be a motivator and useful tool that helps us transform the future of media.