journalism – Page 6 – Media Matters

November 10, 2016

Looking for Someone/thing to Blame

Sorry, but this is another politically-themed blog post. I know that many of you have seen and heard enough after 18 months of political campaigns, debates, and negative ads; all of it adding up to what will likely be remembered as the most contentious election cycle in history.

But I need to take one more opportunity to discuss the role of the media in our democratic process. Our system of government depends on the participation of an informed electorate. Access to reliable information from non-partisan sources is essential to ensure a that “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish” (Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address). According to Martin Baron, executive editor at the Washington Post, “If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?” (NYT)

I received an email today with a list of recommended articles. Here’s a screen shot of two of them. I don’t know Max Read or Mike Masnick, but one of them is, apparently, an idiot. But seriously, they can’t both be right…unless they are. It is certainly true that social media has been a game changer for political campaigning, and Donald Trump and his surrogates have been incredibly effective. But it is also true that there are many other dynamics that explain the outcome of this race.

There is a growing sense that the election this week was revolutionary. The fact that most of the reporters, commentators, pollsters, and pundits were caught off guard by the outcome is remarkable as well. Some have speculated that journalists seem to be more out of touch than ever with rural folk in the country’s heartland (what some dismiss as the flyover states) and that could have something to do with it. Margaret Sullivan at the Washington Post claimed that most journalists just didn’t get it, weren’t listening, or were unable to comprehend the depth of support for Trump.

Now that the dust is settling…or at least we hope it’s settling…there is a lot of debriefing, navel-gazing, and yes, finger-pointing going on. For those in the media looking for an explanation there has to be something or someone responsible for this mind-boggling outcome. One place receiving special scrutiny is social media, and more specifically, Facebook. According to Will Oremus at Slate and Damon Beres at Mashable, Facebook’s inability or unwillingness to police its Trending news and news feed for fake news is leading many Facebookers astray.

According to Beres, While it’s obviously impossible to define how exposure to certain articles, video or photographs impacts an individual’s life, it’s downright cynical to suggest it all has zero effect.

Beres goes on to cite a study by PEW Research that suggests that “20 percent of Americans have changed their views on an issue because of something they’ve seen on social media.”

Like I said, there will be plenty of finger-pointing in the coming days, weeks and months. Some of them right now are being pointed at Facebook and other social media platforms. One thing is clear…social media is a force to be reckoned with.

November 4, 2016

The Cubs and Indians Gave Us a Much-Needed Break

mlb-2000-ws-trophy-590 The seven-game race for the MLB championship was a much-needed break from this year’s ugly race for President. Thankfully the Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians gave us a welcome diversion from the bare-knuckle politics that have dominated the headlines in recent weeks. Winning a major-league championship is a big deal, and winning after a 108-year drought is even bigger.

So let’s take just a minute to reflect on the state of nation, and media, the last time the Cubs won the World Series (in 1908).

Yellow journalism was still the norm…and the Spanish-American war had just ended 10 years earlier.
The wild west was slowly being tamed. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were killed in Bolivia just a few weeks after the Cubs won the World Series. And the State of Colorado had only been a state for 32 years.
It was an election year, and William Howard Taft was running against William Jennings Bryan. Taft, the Republican, won. Women were allowed to vote in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, but not elsewhere.
Human flight was taking off (pardon the pun). Wilbur Wright demonstrated his plane in Europe for the first time in 1908.
Model T’s were available from the Ford Motor Company in any color you wanted, as long as you wanted black.
Émile Cohl makes the first fully animated film, Fantasmagorie.
Journalist Edward R. Murrow was born.

(Credit: http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-03/what-world-was-when-cubs-last-won-world-series)

October 12, 2016

Private Lies Exposed

A journalist’s job is to find and report the truth. Assuming for a moment that “the truth” exists and can be found and identified as such, journalists still face a plethora of challenges as they go about their work. For starters, the truth can be inconvenient. Thanks to Al Gore, the inconvenience of truth is now forever linked to a particular issue; global warming. But every issue has its inconvenient aspects. For example, a journalist may uncover a fact that runs counter to her personal values or beliefs. Or, a discovery may reveal a truth that defies simple explanation.

Of course a truth revealed can also be terribly inconvenient for the news maker. Celebrities, politicians, and others in the public eye are constantly trying to manage their public perception…which is often at odds with their private reality. Last week’s revelations from Wikileaks and NBC/Access Hollywood have been very inconvenient for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump respectively for obvious reasons. The leaks, while damaging, do not break new ground but rather reinforce existing concerns about Clinton’s propensity for lying and Trump’s sexist and demeaning behavior towards women.

In each case the public figure is damaged when the private self is suddenly revealed. This is, of course, most pronounced when the public and private selves are substantially at odds with each other. The greater the difference, the more pronounced the conflict when the private self is exposed. This kind of hypocrisy, of which we are all guilty on some level, can derail a public figure when it spins out of control. The public demands authenticity, or at least something closely resembling it, from their leaders.

Journalists are often the ones who have the dirty job of pointing out hypocrisy wherever and whenever it exists…even when it is found in “their” candidate…or themselves.

October 4, 2016

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

truthmeter Mass media are essential to the process of democracy. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” only works if the people know what’s going on…and the media provide the primary channels for that information. Of course the implication is that the mass media do their jobs in a responsible way, avoiding partisan bias and manipulation by outside interests. The brunt of this responsibility falls on journalists. Whether they work for newspapers, TV networks, or internet websites, reporters who cover the political beat are the eyes and ears of the American electorate. Ideally they report what they see and hear without speculation or conjecture.

In a political season such as this, journalists must be particularly careful when covering candidates who use every trick in the book to manipulate the media and advance their message. When candidates stretch the truth (often to the breaking point) journalists in a live reporting situation must make an effort to call out the error.

But fact checking candidates and their surrogates can be tricky business. While partisans may think that every statement by their political opponents is a flat-out lie, it is seldom that clear-cut. Journalists must have enough command of the facts to catch the easy calls, and the aid of researchers, aka fact-checkers, to parse the more difficult cases. This is not easy. NBC’s Matt Lauer was heavily criticized for pushing back too hard when interviewing Hillary Clinton for the Commander-In-Chief Forum, and NBC’s Lester Holt was criticized for fact-checking Donald Trump but not Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate last week.

Fortunately journalists, and the public, have additional resources at their disposal. Independent fact-checking organizations have stepped up to provide non-partisan, independent fact-checking of politicians and other news-makers. Politifact’s Truth-O-Meter is one example. Here’s a short (light-hearted) video that explains how it works.

https://youtu.be/7r_8szmCVis

September 15, 2016

Russian Hackers Feed US Journalists

Hacker at keyboard You may have seen news reports about emails and other documents that have recently been released to the public after they were obtained by hackers, who are likely of Russian origin. Documents were obtained from Democratic National Committee computers, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and George Soros, a billionaire and liberal donor, earlier this summer. More recently, former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s emails were hacked. Some have speculated that Russia is targeting Democrats in order to sway public opinion towards Donald Trump.

Cyber warfare is not new, but this meddling by foreign countries in political matters on the eve of a Presidential election is cause for concern.

WikiLeaks, the organization founded by Julian Assange, and DCLeaks have published the leaked documents. Little is known about DCLeaks. While they claim to be a group of “American hacktivists”, some have speculated that Russian intelligence created DCLeaks for the express purpose of leaking sensitive data intended to manipulate the upcoming election.

But leaked information still needs a channel or conduit (aka “medium”) to reach its intended target audience…the American people. That is where journalists come in. Once private emails and other sensitive information is uploaded to the DCLeaks website, news/gossip websites, such as BuzzFeed, report on the privacy breach and the private information. Journalists working for established media outlets such as the New York Times, NBC Nightly News, CNN and Fox News file stories about the “breaking” news and these front-page and top-of-the-hour reports are seen by millions. Social media users take snippets of journalistic candy and spread it even further and wider. And yes, I recognize that this blog post is part of the problem!

Russian hackers, using the moniker Fancy Bear, have also hacked the World Anti-Doping Agency and released medical records from Olympic athletes from numerous countries, including celebrity athletes such as Simone Biles and the Williams sisters. Poynter.org, a journalism think-tank asked an important question: should journalists report on leaked information that was obtained illegally? You can read more here.

Whether it is private medical information or personal emails, questions remain. Should anonymous criminals with potentially nefarious motives be allowed to influence our culture and politics?, and should American journalists assist and abet them in the process?

May 16, 2016

What’s NOT Trending on Facebook?

Well, for starters there’s less conservative news from conservative sources than one might expect. A recent report by Gizmodo reveals that the Trending feed on Facebook may be less objective than many thought. One might fairly assume that these are organic results based on what is popular and being shared on Facebook…and you would be partly right. But the revelation that has the media world talking is that insiders say that Facebook intentionally directs human curators to leave out conservative news and opinions while injecting other news stories that are not actually trending.

Now, just to be clear, we fully expect traditional news sources to make decisions regarding what is news worthy and which stories to place on the front page. This is standard practice and any debate about the ethics of this practice is only to the extent that the editorial policies of any given news organization are consistent and transparent. The objection here is that Facebook appeared to be suggesting that the Trending stories were simply the result of algorithms analyzing Facebook for popular results. But if that’s not the case, and Facebook is injecting some stories and holding others back, then there is a real problem that deserves a response.

Sure, the news industry has long been viewed as an uneven playing field where liberal voices have had an upper hand. More recently talk radio and Fox News tilted things back towards the other side. The rise of the internet was seen as a solution for the potential threat of big media controlling access to information. But if Facebook (or Apple, Google, Microsoft, or any other new media mega-corporation) is willing to inject their own biases into their products and platforms, the playing field will become a swamp where no one will dare to venture. This idea that platforms ought to be agnostic is at the very core of the argument in favor of Net Neutrality.

Social media is increasingly becoming a source of news. While mainstream news media (broadcast and cable TV, newspapers, and news magazines) struggle to remain relevant, social media has stepped up to offer bite-sized morsels of news for the highly-distracted audience. Facebook, Google, Snap Chat, and others have been competing for the attention of this audience.

The enormity of the power that can be deployed by a company the size of Facebook is staggering. Just a short time ago Facebook was caught manipulating the emotional state of its users by selectively posting content to their wall intended to make them feel certain emotions. An earlier experiment was designed to discover if manipulating a person’s news feed could make them more inclined to vote in an upcoming election. Now, imagine for a moment if that same persuasive power were exerted for one side or the other in an ideological or political contest.

In response to the allegations Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has denied the charges but has offered to meet with conservative leaders. That meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 18th and one of the conservative leaders who will meet with Zuckerberg is MCCNM alumnus Dana Perino, former White House Press Secretary.

April 19, 2016

100 Years of Pulitzers

CentennialMarkwithMedal Pulitzer Prizes, arguably the most prestigious awards in journalism, were awarded yesterday and we were reminded, yet again, of the importance and significance of a free press. A quick glance at the winners reveals reporting, commenting, and editing on a wide range of issues of grave importance. For example: slavery, public school performance (or lack thereof), police brutality, and abusive behavior in mental institutions and prisons were topics that were recognized and acknowledged.

The role of the press as guardians of all that is good and right is a long-standing tradition that has come under great attack in recent years. Sloppy and biased reporting, ideological campaigns masquerading as objective coverage, and economic pressure to turn a profit have eroded the trust and credibility that took so long to build. According to Poynter Institute, a Pulitzer Prize was once retracted. In 1981, The Washington Post‘s Janet Cooke was awarded a prize for feature writing. It was retracted two days later when the Post learned it was fabricated.

American consumers of news have long counted on objective reporters shining lights in dark corners to root out corruption and malfeasance. The fact that the Pulitzers are 100 years old this year is a reminder that the legacy of journalism endures despite the disruptive nature of digital media technology. It is not just a little ironic that the prize is named for Joseph Pulitzer, one of the newspaper publishers best known for the scandalous rise of Yellow Journalism at the end of the 19th century. Pulitzer’s New York World was a significant part of the problem back then. Perhaps that is why the name associated with the newspaper was in need of rehabilitation; which the prize provides.

March 28, 2016

What do you fear?

If you listen to news for any length of time you’ll find plenty of opportunities for fear. Global terrorism, the Zika virus, gang violence, opioid addiction, a White House occupied by ________ (fill in the blank with your least favorite candidate)…all are reasons to pull the covers over your head and stay in bed. The good thing about being a young adult is that most of these fears seem rather distant and unlikely. After all, you’re young and healthy and you live in America (not some undeveloped nation ruled by a despot). Why worry?

News is, by definition, a summary of what’s gone wrong. People always say they’d like to see more “good” news…but the fact is that news is news precisely because it deviates from what is good and right. Crime, natural disasters, political chicanery, moral failings…this is the stuff of news on any given day. When a new virus threatens millions of people, even in a distant country, we pay attention. Even more so if it has any chance of reaching our shores. Suicide bombers and mass shooters get our attention; which, ironically, is exactly what they want. And slowly but surely we begin to think that the world is a more dangerous place.

Media theorists have a name for this. Cultivation theory says that the more time we spend in the media world the more we fear. The Mean World Syndrome studies tracked people who watched a lot of TV dramas and news, and found that they had a more fearful and pessimistic view of the world than those who watched less.

So what do I recommend? Don’t ignore the news of the day. Don’t hide your head in the sand and hope it all goes away. Instead, remember that the reality created by the news industry is intentionally biased to show you everything that is wrong with the world. Then, take a moment to reflect on what is right in your world. You’ll be happier for it and we’ll all be better off.

February 24, 2016

Race to the Bottom

campaign_news It’s an election year and my news feed is turning into a political brawl. Cable and network news shows are stoking the drama that seems to grow with every passing day. Presidential candidates are coming unhinged and saying things that would have never have been accepted just a decade or two ago. What used to be a fairly conventional, and even predictable, process has changed. And media may be part of the problem.

Even though the research has not yet been done, I suspect that the political climate that has evolved in recent years is, in part, related to the growth of social media and the increasing polarization of traditional media. Let’s take them one at a time.

Social media, for all of the wonderful ways that it connects us instantly to our social networks, is also divisive. By that I mean that social media creates walls while appearing to build bridges. While creating an illusion of transparency, our posts on social media are often carefully curated presentations of self that are anything but transparent. Honesty is compromised by our desire to maintain an image and build a personal brand. We speak out on all manner of issues, often failing to consider the “audience” on the other end of the conversation. And without the benefit of seeing their reaction, we often fail to see the consequences of our speech. When everyone is standing on a soapbox, the only way to get attention is to yell louder, or say something more shocking.

As I write this blog post this appeared in my Twitter feed.

NewsFlash

Meanwhile, traditional media outlets have found that ratings and advertising revenue increase when conflict and drama are served up. Worth mentioning is the fact that conflict is easy to produce on the cheap. Forget in-depth reporting that carefully dissects the issues and presents a balanced and objective review of the facts. Today’s leading “news” programs are more interested in generating heat than light. And it’s not just TV. Newspaper articles that don’t have the word commentary at the top are only slightly less opinionated than those that do. Everyone seems to want to take a position and defend it to the death.

Social media and increasingly fragmented TV news programs both do something else that contributes to the problem; they both promote the echo-chamber effect. What happens is that we increasingly limit our conversations to those who agree with us, and make little effort to search out opposing views. The Filter Bubble phenomenon is part of the problem.

Maybe I’m just frustrated and tired of watching civility and decency go by the wayside. What used to be valued and treasured human character traits are now seen as signs of weakness and an invitation to be characterized as a loser. Is media the cause or the result? Perhaps it’s too soon to tell. But if we don’t figure it out soon there may be little worth salvaging.

January 13, 2016

Dear Rolling Stone…

…please stick to music. Believe it or not, the magazine used to have a reputation for quality investigative journalism. But recent high-profile ethical failures have tarnished that seanpenn reputation. First it was the campus rape story that was retracted after the accuser’s story disintegrated. In this case irresponsible journalism damaged not only the reputation of individuals and the UVA campus community, it did damage to the cause of those working hard to reduce sexual assault on college campuses. You can read about the debacle here.

The Sean Penn interview with El Chapo puts another nail in Rolling Stone‘s coffin when it comes to journalistic integrity. According to an interview with David Folkenflik on National Public Radio,

the agreement that Rolling Stone made was extraordinary and, I think, wrong. It agreed to allow Joaquin Guzman, the real name of El Chapo, to review and demand changes in the article before publication. Rolling Stones says he chose not to do so. But what an abrogation, what a relinquishment of editorial control and authority.

Another reason for concern is the role of Sean Penn. We’ve seen other attempts at celebrity activism fail miserably. Remember Dennis Rodman’s basketball diplomacy with North Korea? When celebrities inject themselves into serious news stories, the story is often overshadowed by the celebrity’s fame or political baggage.

Perhaps the best thing to come of the interview was the capture of El Chapo. According to the AP as reported in the Washington Post,

Associated Press quoted Mexican authorities saying that Penn’s contacts with Guzmán helped them track down the fugitive in a rural part of Durango state.

UPDATE: Sean Penn feels terrible regret over his interview with El Chapo.