Journalism Education in the Era of 'Fake News'

Ally Lanasa
al887715@ohio.edu

Journalists have always valued truth. In the era of "fake news" and condemnation from the president, truth is the most important ethical value to uphold. It is vital that journalists are trained in matters to ensure accuracy. Two key guides from the SPJ Code of Ethics under "Seek Truth and Report It" are  to "be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable" and to "recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government."

Journalists have been under attack by U.S. presidents before. Richard Nixon had disdain for the media and kept an enemies list that included the names of reporters. However, this did not turn people away from the profession. Contrarily, the number of enrolled journalism majors more than doubled from 1970 to 1979, following the Watergate scandal, increased salaries in the field and a rise in the significance of media in culture, especially to broadcast national news events.

Although Trump refers to the press as the "enemy of the people," college students continue to be attracted to the profession and are invested in current events. Journalism programs across the nation have reported increased enrollment.  Criticism from the president motivates students to produce their best work.

The New York Times has created a series of lesson plans to evaluate the relationship between the press and the presidential administration. For example, a lesson plan published in May 2017 encourages American students to consider the importance of a free press in a democracy, then answer questions regarding articles about Trump's open disdain for the media. Students will analyze and discuss how the relationship between the press and the presidential administration differs with each president. 

A September 2018 report from Pew Research  found that a large partisan divide remains in attitudes toward the media. Republicans are more likely to say news is one-sided rather than objective. Additionally, there is greater Democratic support than Republican support for the media serving as a check on the government.

Courtesy of Pew Research Center

Another study from Pew Research published in June 2018 found that 49 percent of adults in America have some trust in the media, but only 21 percent have a lot of trust in the media.

Courtesy of Pew Research Center

How do journalists obtain more trust from Americans who have such suspicion of the media? In journalism schools across the country, professors are focusing on "teaching media literacy, fact checking and the basic tenets of reporting," according to The Atlantic.  Students must be trained to properly use the technology and resources available to identify and verify credible sources, conduct thorough research and provide context in their reporting. Students need to learn how to properly correct mistakes and be transparent about them. Students should be taught about the various codes of ethics among different journalism and public relations professions and be encouraged to develop their own personal code of ethics. Students should consider the consequences of posting their opinions, especially regarding political issues, on social media. Students should seek mentors in academia as well as in their future profession for guidance.

Nothing but the Truth

Lukas Moore
lm169715@ohio.edu

Sometimes the simplest things in our lives become the most complex issues. Telling the truth is a prime example of this, it seems so simple. Yet, every single day all of us lie in some way. We tell our significant other they look great in that outfit. We tell ourselves that it's just water weight, or we make up an excuse for being late. When someone asks how we are, does anyone ever really tell the truth? Telling the full truth is something that is very hard to do as individuals day in and day out, but in journalism this is absolutely necessary.

Every aspect of our industry is reliant on truthful information. Without the full truth, trust begins to erode. If people don't trust the information given to them by journalists than the job becomes meaningless because people stop listening. If people don't listen, then we aren't providing them the information they need; and in times like these people are closing their ears to new ideas much sooner than any time in American history.

Misinformation has always been spread by politicians, whether it be propaganda or small white lies. Journalists have always checked that information and the story in the paper or on TV was considered the truth, because journalism was trusted. Journalism was trusted because it was doing good work and because people did not have much choice but to trust it. If the nightly newscast made a claim or told a story, it was impossible to fact check on the internet, or even attempt to. Now, every single thing that is written and spoken by mainstream media can be checked and scrutinized. Plus, the options for receiving information are limitless. No longer is it four newspapers to choose from and three TV stations, it is hundreds upon hundreds.

So why has the trust in journalism faded? Well, I think its unfair and flat wrong to say journalists today are worse or more willing to lie than those from the past. However, the amount of misinformation that has been spread throughout the world since the Internet's creation has created a deep-rooted mistrust of media. People don't have time to fact check every story they read, and if they aren't sure it is truthful they'll count it as a lie. Especially if it flies in the face of a previously held opinion. It is also much easier to find an article supporting your false belief, and the easiest way to believe a lie is to have someone believe it with you.

What is the solution? Well, from a journalist's perspective, we can't do much about the problem of misinformation on the internet. That is a problem for society as a whole to tackle. All we can do is strive for the whole truth and nothing but the truth at all times. We have to be perfect as modern journalists, because every time we mess up we add fuel to the fire. Double-check everything, verify sources, do all the legwork. If we don't, then journalism could crumble, and if that happens it is hard to imagine a functioning democratic society.

Democracy, Journalism, and Political Bias

Dominic Massa
dm968315@ohio.edu

Politics have recently become a critical issue pertaining to the media.  Although it is the obligation of a journalist to be objective and transparent, politics make this quite difficult, and can lead one to act inappropriately or unprofessional.  Failing to remain objective and allowing personal beliefs or bias to get in the way of one's work could prove to be very detrimental to one's professional career.

Instances

People gather at a vigil in Orlando, Florida after the nightclub shootings in June, 2016.  Although a shooter was involved in this mass murder, many questioned the media when they began to shift focus on gun control and the Republican Party, rather than that of who committed the crime.  Photo via www.newrepublic.com

American media has been under noticeable scrutiny since the election of President Donald Trump.  According to Trump, reporters tend to manipulate stories, eventually making it "fake news".  This was evident during Jim Acosta's interview pertaining to immigration with the president earlier this month.  Annoyed with the CNN correspondent's questions, Trump was eager to move onto another topic, and was short with responses during the interview.  However, Acosta didn't budge, and proceeded to ask away as the argument became increasingly heated.  Eventually, Trump went on a personal attack of the CNN employee, suggesting he let [Trump] run the country and for [Acosta] to run CNN.  In addition, the president noted that by doing this and doing it well, CNN would have better overall ratings.  At the end of the confrontation, Trump makes one more remark to Acosta, indicating that he and his coworkers at CNN report fake news, and by doing so, they become the "...enemy of the people."

Although Acosta's interview did not go as smoothly as one would expect, the CNN reporter did not shy away despite the president's orders.  This is critical to journalism as a whole, because instead of just accepting that the president wouldn't give him a proper answer and ending his interview, he continued to ask Trump the questions he had prepared.

A different instance of democracy and political bias in journalism came earlier this year.  In February, Fox host Laura Ingraham put NBA stars LeBron James and Kevin Durant on blast for their comments relating to alleged racial comments made by President Donald Trump.  After video of both James and Durant's interview with ESPN's Cari Champion was displayed, Ingraham took a personal shot at the pair, questioning why they run their mouths like that to begin with.  Then, after acknowledging that both James and Durant are considered icons and role models to many around them, Ingraham perhaps let her personal beliefs do the broadcasting, saying, "Keep the political knowledge to yourself, or as someone once said, shut up and dribble."  The broadcast was met with great public controversy in the days that followed.

Remaining Objective/Unbiased

Of course, it isn't simple to remain objective or unbiased in a professional setting.  Personal belief or opinion can most definitely influence a journalist to report or act in an unprofessional manner, which typically creates even more problems for both the individual and the organization in which they work for.  Because of this, it is important to value ethics and the exact ways you are expected to go about covering news; by neglecting it, you and your company now have more problems at hand, and your personal reputation as a journalist has been tarnished.

Here LIES Political Honesty

Samantha Morsink
sm362415@ohio.edu

The media and politicians have often debated and disagreed with one another. The media seeks to report the truth and often politicians are more focused on their own personal gain. Still, politicians have always seemed to at least have a respect for the journalism profession and their duty to report out to the public. Both typically have worked together respectfully, despite when a news outlet may report out on issues the politicians disagree with. Recently, with the election of President Trump, this divide between the political atmosphere and the media has increased drastically. Despite political biases and opinions, this has become an indisputable fact. Trump's distaste and often, outright disrespect, for the media can be seen time and time again in many conversations Trump has had either on Twitter or through interviews, even going so far as to call the media "the enemy of the people".

Photo taken from: https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-president-press-enemies-people-twitter-tweet-7586866

What is ironic here is that Trump's problem with the media is that he claims they are spreading falsehood and "fake news" despite his own repetitive comments that have been proven to be blatantly incorrect. With so many false claims and statements, many news outlets have begun to more loosely use a term that was previously almost never used in the media - Lie. It is clear why journalists would steer away from this word, as it is harsh and accusatory, but the debate for when this term should be used is now coming about. While some argue that the term should never be used because there is no way to prove what the person making the false claim was actually thinking and if they intentionally lied or if they were just uninformed. Others believe if the person should be informed and they are repeatedly saying something false, it is perfectly acceptable to call them a liar. Personally, I believe that the term lying should be used sparingly, but is absolutely acceptable in certain situations. A few scenarios where I believe journalists could appropriately use the word "lie" would be:

1. If the person is in a position where they should know the facts of the matter

The president lying about political matters, for example, would be a lie. I would say this constitutes as a lie because more often than not, the person would know the truth about this because it is their profession. If they don't, then they should not be speaking on the matter or possibly they shouldn't hold the position at all if they are so misinformed that they don't understand major topics within their field.

2. Repeatedly sharing misinformation

It is understandable that once or twice a person may accidentally speak incorrectly, especially if they are someone who is often on camera or they are in a high-pressure situation. However, there comes a point where you have to begin questioning if it is intentional. Is it really an innocent mistake of being misinformed if the person continues to consistently make the same "mistake" over and over again with different topics of discussion? The Washington Post has recorded that Trump has made of 4,229 false claims in 558 days.  To accidentally make such a large amount of false claims on accident would require a person to be extremely unintelligent and uninformed. While in this scenario one may be able to make a convincing case for this, it is more likely than not that it has become intentional.

3. The correct information is easily accessible

Regardless of your profession, there are some things that are just indisputable. This is because there are facts that are easily accessible and have been repeatedly proven. If you can find the answer in a google search of fewer than 30 seconds, there's really no excuse in sharing incorrect information.

4. Blatant manipulation

I thought this one might go without saying, but then Press Secretary Sarah Sanders doctored footage of a press conference and claimed she wasn't lying and it wasn't doctored footage.... For obvious reasons, this is clearly an intentional lie. For anyone who needs me to make a more convincing case, I would simply redirect to the dictionary definition of a lie.

This may seem biased, but I think it is important to acknowledge that despite political views, it is undeniable and can be shown through facts that President Trump has done not just one of these, but all of these examples for what I would consider to be a major red flag of a liar. The president, intentionally or not, repeatedly sharing false information and blaming the media has created a major political divide and a divide between the people and the media that is damaging in many ways. It is important to acknowledge this because it will allow for a more open mind before we believe anything anyone says simply because of their status.

Is it Really an Epidemic?

Murphy Patterson
mp385915@ohio.edu

Mary Annette Pember, an independent writer and photographer, spent Wednesday night speaking to students at the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism. Her main focus was about sex trafficking, mainly of Native women, with Pember being a Native woman herself. She began her talk with explaining how this problem has been 500 years in the making and some main causes were racism and jurisdiction problems.

With the audience being full of aspiring young journalists, Pember began with cold hard facts to give everyone a sense of what the issues are. She explained how the department of justice reported that Native women are 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual assault. Since these statistics are so outlandish, she explained how people have begun to talk about Native women being sex trafficked as an "epidemic."

Pember has a very realistic way of looking at issues, and sometimes comes off with a sarcastic tone as she speaks. When talking about the "epidemic" of Native women being sex trafficked Pember said that this has always been a problem, it is just now considered an epidemic because white people started paying attention. She wants people to realize that for Native women, this is an inescapable part of life. They can't just turn a blind eye or act like sex trafficking isn't an issue in their culture. She claims that white men treat the subject with impunity.

So the question is: Should sex trafficking in Native culture be considered an epidemic? When talking about an epidemic people are usually referring to a disease like a plague or drug addiction. So do we now consider widespread actions such as sex trafficking as epidemics? Pember believes that referring to Native women being sex trafficked as an epidemic is a good thing because now people are paying attention, but also not so good because people are just now recognizing it.

                                                           Courtesy of Getty Images

Native women have been getting sex trafficked for a very long time now. Native women are more vulnerable and government law usually doesn't apply as strongly in Native communities. Native women are more available to the sex trafficking world because of being oppressed for so many years. Pember mentioned how when she was a photographer and would do stories on Native women who have been victims of sexual violence, she would observe their facial emotions and body language. She could tell they have been hurt and affected by these terrible crimes.

Pember believes that people need to be held more accountable when discussing sex trafficking. She expressed her opinions very strongly when she asked the question, "why are we giving men such a pass?" She discussed how men have an illusion that they are not part of the problem or part of the process of sex working, when they are the ones ordering the women to their houses.

Pember thinks that sex working is systematic oppression and is embedded into our economy. She wants to do more research on this idea and I think this is also a very interesting take as well. She continues freelance writing and speaking to students about the important issues of sex trafficking of Native women.

The Ones Who Don't Matter

Julia Gogol
jg152015@ohio.edu

"Some people in our culture count, and some people don't."

These were the words spoken by Mary Annette Pember at the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism's "90 Minutes" series this past Wednesday night.  Pember, a Cincinnati-based award-winning journalist and citizen of the Red Cliff Band of Wisconsin Ojibwe, came to the university to speak about sexual assault in Indian country specifically, but also the rest of the United States.

"The National Crime Information Center reports that, in 2016, there were 5,712 reports of missing American Indian and Alaska Native women and girls, though the US Department of Justice’s federal missing persons database, NamUs, only logged 116 cases," according to the Urban Indian Health Institute.

We as Americans pride ourselves on being the "melting pot," but we seem to have forgotten what exactly that means.  How long has it been since we've had equal opportunity for all?  Have we ever?

More than 84 percent of native women have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime, while U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute 67 percent of sexual violence cases occurring on tribal lands, according to a report from the Native American Journalists Association.

Police clearly aren't taking charge and fighting to change this statistic.  It's usually the small activist groups that make any headway on this topic at all.  But we as journalists can take the first steps to helping.

As journalists, we sometimes go into a story with a predetermined ending, we'll call it the "ideal" way we want our story to end.  But our interviews and our subjects don't always turn out the way we plan.  Pember recalled countless times when journalists she was with were so engrossed with taking notes so they could give a good story to their editor, that they would never look up from their pen and paper and just be.

In the case of reporting sexual violence, we as interviewers can sometimes be the only outlet for our subjects to talk to, and we need to take that into consideration.  We must take into account the history and heritage of the people we are writing about, especially when it comes to native women.

Courtesy of Anthro Feminism

Perhaps, Pember explained, men view native women as "spoils of the conquest."  Like they deserve to take these women because their bodies are devalued to simply being part of the land.  Feasibly, men don't care about these women's bodies because they don't see them as women.  Because of their native heritage, they are just bodies for the taking.

It is in our best ethical interest to report about these cases and these women with the utmost respect.  We cannot have predetermined stereotypes or judgement.

Back in the 80s in the police room, they had an expression, Pember said.  "NHI."  It stood for "No Humans Involved."  This was term they used to describe cases involving missing or murdered women of color.

The ones who didn't matter.

But the thing is, these women do matter.  They matter just as much as you or I or the police chief himself.  And we need to start showing this in our journalistic work.  Everyone deserves fair representation, and everyone deserves to matter.

Seek Out the Hate

Maureen O'Brien

mb163416@ohio.edu

Where does the line between freedom of speech and hate speech become blurred? According to Merriam-Webster, hate speech is "speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)." With that definition in mind, it would be difficult to ignore the examples that one might see on social media every day. Platforms like Twitter, Instagram and Facebook have community guidelines that attempt to prevent people's words from spreading hateful messages and, via Facebook Community Standards, inciting "real-world violence."

Graphic obtained from https://www.dw.com/en/eu-social-media-companies-accelerate-hate-speech-removals-in-self-regulation-push/a-42222597 

Who should be burdened with the responsibility of upholding users to the guidelines standards they agree to when they create their account? There are vigilant users who report the toxic language and posts they come across, but there has to be a more thorough and direct way to ensure that social media shuts down hate speech while not infringing upon freedom of speech. 

An article in the New York Times stated that, "Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have all announced plans to invest heavily in artificial intelligence and other technology aimed at finding and removing unwanted content from their sites." These social media giants recognize their responsibility to their users to generate a community that will not accelerate bigotry, intimidation or otherwise hateful behavior. The guidelines that they set for their users are not an attempt to limit personal opinion, but to prevent creating an environment where people are allowed to so blatantly discriminate. 

Until social media platforms obtain the ability to seek out and ban hateful speech and other content, the job of social justice warrior falls on the shoulders of every user. It's imperative to remove hate speech from social media because nothing is more important than ensuring the safety of everyone who uses the platforms. Companies must be held accountable for upholding their users to the guidelines they have set for appropriate content, and while most agree that wide opinions are encouraged, a line must be drawn. Hate speech is not free speech, and left unchecked, it can do immeasurable harm and normalize offensive behavior.