Longtime NPR and ABC News reporter and correspondent Cokie Roberts died last week and her presence will be sorely missed by those who believe in journalism. A woman who rose to prominence in a male-dominated industry, Roberts was an advocate for journalists at large, and for female journalists when their numbers were few.
According to NPR, “Roberts won numerous awards during her long career in journalism, including three Emmys and the Edward R. Murrow award. She was inducted into the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame. She was recognized by the American Women in Radio and Television as one of the 50 greatest women in the history of broadcasting.”
Her advice to young journalists still rings true today…”Don’t get all involved in the politics of your institution, or competition in your institution. Just do your work and get it on the air, and then people will see if you’re good,” she said.
If you build the most powerful propaganda platform in the history of communication and make it available for free to a global audience, don’t be surprise when anyone and everyone shows up to use (and abuse) your platform. That’s what social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google are discovering as yet another attempt to manipulate users has been revealed.
According to recent reports, Twitter said it will no longer accept advertising from from “state-controlled news media entities” after it was discovered that China was attempting to use Twitter and Facebook to engage in orchestrated misinformation around the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. This comes on the heels of repeated reports of Russian use of social media to influence political campaigns and elections in the USA and elsewhere.
The question now is whether these huge tech companies can put the genie back in the bottle. Or will regulation, new AI technology, or some other solution have to appear before we can feel confident that freedom and democracy are safe from the actions of nefarious state actors?
Journalists are struggling to figure out how to cover President Trump, and more specifically his recent tweets about four democratic representatives who also happen to be persons-of-color. The President’s Twitter stream, and his public comments made at campaign events and press conferences, have crossed a line for some reporters and editors who are now grappling with how to talk about the President who is accused of saying things that they interpret as racist.
The New York Times has taken heat recently from politicians and other media outlets for not calling out the President as a racist. According to critics, the NYT’s failure to call Trump a racist is enabling and promoting the rise of racism. But according to CNN, Executive Editor Dean Baquet, “has opted to explain what Trump has said, allowing readers to decide for themselves whether they consider his comments racist.” This approach has been the standard approach to non-partisan and objective journalism over the years, but one that leaves more progressive advocates calling for a change.
In a related issue, the NYT was criticized for a headline published, and then changed, in the aftermath of the El Paso and Dayton shootings. According to The Independent, “The first headline read, “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS RACISM”, but was changed to, “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS” following outrage as the portrayal of the US president as a unifier.” In response, Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that the NYT’s initial take was a reminder that “white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions”.
What do you think? Should journalists call out racism by naming it, or should they report on what was said or done and let the readers decide for themselves? And, if you’re a working journalists, take a survey to let them know what you think about the debate.
I’ve been asking students in the Media & Society class to think about the future of newspapers/journalism/truth…in an age of smart phones and social media. As suspected, few read a newspaper and most get their news from their phones. That’s to be expected and there are many reasons why newspapers are fading into obscurity. But I’m constantly reminded that news reporting and journalism can not, and must not, die alongside newspapers. Here’s why…
Wondering about the future of journalism…
Without journalists we wouldn’t know that celebrities and wealthy business executives were involved in a scam to get their kids into elite universities. Fake test scores, made-up athletic achievements, and even photoshopped pictures of these kids were used to bribe coaches and administrators, and in so doing deprive worthy students of their seat at the table.
Without journalists we wouldn’t know what happened when a group of kids from a Catholic high school were confronted by a group of Black Hebrew Israelites and Native American protesters on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. We might have heard a rumor or one person’s interpretation of what happened, but we wouldn’t have found out how it really went down.
Without journalists we wouldn’t know that Michael Jackson and R. Kelly have dark pasts and that swirling allegations of child sexual abuse may finally be brought to light and justice may finally be served.
Without journalists we wouldn’t know about the opioid epidemic, the risk that black mothers face in childbirth, and the horrific rise of teen suicide among Native Americans.
Without journalists we would only know what people in power want us to know…and that is a recipe for…disaster/dictatorship/destruction.
But we’re in a strange place where we know that we need journalists and journalism, but we can’t figure out how to pay for it. We’ve been free-riding on the backs of legacy media systems that are failing…and the rising role of digital platforms like Google and Facebook has not held out much reason for hope. But one thing is certain…we need to figure it out soon, or we’re going to pay a much steeper price in the future. If you think gaining knowledge is expensive, wait until you see how much ignorance costs!
Unconscious bias infects our every thought and decision. It is a given, and most of the time we learn to live with our own (and with others’) biases. However, as media content producers we should learn a few best practices to minimize the effect of our personal biases if we want to rise above petty partisanship and minimize the reproach of our readers/listeners/viewers. As the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics says, “Seek the Truth and Report it.”
The YouTube video below by Julia Galef explains how we approach new information from different perspectives when we’re acting as a soldier or a scout. The “soldier” is seeking to win the battle, while the “scout” is simply trying to understand the context and the facts on the ground.
This concept also applies to the role of media consumer. When you’re consuming new information try to step outside of your team/group identity before you rush to judgement. Try to adopt a scout mindset, especially when confronted with information that counters your existing values and opinions. If we can all take a small step in that direction we’ll find that truth is much more likely to begin to chip away at our unconscious biases.
Elle magazine may have had good intentions, but their strategy to encourage readers to register to vote was terribly misdirected. Here’s the tweet that Elle sent out to its followers:
The catch is that Kim and Kanye are NOT breaking up, and the link provided takes users not to a news story but to a Voter Registration website. What some have called “trolling for good” is anything but good for media credibility which is already suffering from years of decline.
Some saw the stunt as a slap in the face of young women who are frequently depicted as politically unengaged and only interested in celebrity news.
Which led Elle to tweet an apology for the original tweet; a reminder once again that social media gone wrong is a constant threat to brand credibility.
Perhaps you spent a good part of your day on Thursday listening to sworn testimony about something that is alleged to have happened at a house party more than thirty years ago. Media coverage of the hearings and breathless commentary about the credibility of the two witnesses has been nearly worthless in helping us better understand what did or didn’t happen. Conflicting testimony, both offered with 100% assurance of confidence and accuracy, leave us with an empty feeling that we may never know the truth. What we do know is that lives hang in the balance and no one will emerge unscathed.
Truth is slippery. Many who are certain that they know the truth are either too blind or proud to acknowledge their own ignorance. A famous quote (often mis-attributed to Mark Twain but actually sourced to Josh Billings) says…
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
But just because truth is difficult to pin down doesn’t mean that it’s a mirage. Journalists, of all people, need to stay optimistic about the power of unbiased research to yield facts that will eventually point the way. But unless you’re an opinion writer or commentator you’ll need to work doubly hard to set aside your personal views and biases when covering a story as emotional and significant as this one.
This internet meme (see image below left) circulated a few years ago and makes a point about the relative nature of perception. If you ask untrained observers to evaluate a situation they may offer very different observations. But as the updated text on the right indicates, the truth of the matter is not subject to interpretation. The symbol on the ground doesn’t care where you’re standing or what you “think” it means. The truth just is…and it is up to us to figure it out.
In response to the Kavanaugh hearings I found several comments on social media that seemed to want to have it both ways.
I am unwilling to accept the idea that these testimonies are just wildly different interpretations of a shared event. And while FBI investigators may be able to shed light on the “facts” of the alleged incident, responsible reporters should be careful to report facts and avoid offering opinions about whose testimony is more “believable.”
Last evening I had the pleasure to speaking on the topic of “fake news” at the Pikes Peak Library District 21c campus. The sponsors were PPLD, Pikes Peak Women, Citizens Project and Jody Alyn Consulting…and there was a good turnout for this second part to the three-part series.
The reference to “Brain Bugs” comes from the idea that we all have cognitive blind spots…biases that hinder our ability to process news and other sources of new information. Thanks to a suggestion of one of the sponsors of the event I recently read the book Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. I won’t go into detail here but the book really opened my eyes to the way that we process information. Spoiler Alert: we are not very good at critical thinking and the kind of careful analysis that is often required when confronted with news (real and fake), propaganda, advertising, etc.
I’ve posted on the topic of “fake news” in the past, but if you’re interested in what I said last night the presentation was audio recorded by folks at Studio809 and I understand that it will be made available on their website [www.studio809radio.com]
If you give it a listen, let me know what you think in the comments.
My social media feed is filled with partisan bickering and that is pretty much par for the course. Recently I have observed a debate about a couple of letters to the editor published by my local paper, the Pueblo Chieftain. I’ll refer to the two letter writers as Citizen A and Citizen B to protect their identity, and to try to provide some space between the debate over their statements and the debate over this particular political disagreement.
Citizen A wrote a letter that was published on June 30th in which he took a stand on a highly contentious issue that is currently in the news. Here is an excerpt taken out of context (in order to minimize bias depending on your stand on the issue). “Silence is more than complicity. Silence is violence. The coming war must be fought by all means necessary, by the pen and by the sword.”
In response, Citizen B wrote a letter in which he quoted the last line of the above quote and then added this: “This guy is the kind of cancer who there needs to be a cure for. I have a cure, but it is illegal.”
While the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights, including the right to free speech or free expression, there are well-known exceptions to that protection. For example one cannot claim protection for speech that is defamatory, violates copyright, or incites violence. It is why you’ll likely be arrested if you talk about having a bomb while you’re in an airport (or other public spaces). Which brings us back to the discussion playing out on my Facebook page. Do either of these letters to the editor cross that line? Is either one a “true threat”? Are either/both of them protected speech, or does one or the other fall outside of the protection of the First Amendment and potentially place the “speaker” in legal jeopardy?
The statement by Citizen A is a vague call to violent action but is not directed at anyone specifically. The statement by Citizen B addresses a specific individual, but recognizes the legal constraint imposed on the implied action. One does not need to read between the lines to come to the conclusion that the “illegal” cure is physical harm directed at Citizen A.
Legal precedent is does not provide a clear answer to these issues. Whether one applies the “incitement to imminent lawless action” standard or considers whether the speech constitutes a “true threat” as interpreted by a “reasonable person,” much remains unsettled.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in a response to a pair of cross-burning cases collectively known as Virginia v. Black (2003), upheld the Virginia law making it illegal to intimidate others by burning a cross. Such actions constituted a “true threat” and could be deemed illegal. According to her opinion,
‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.
The jury is still out, but some on Facebook have reached their conclusions. In fact, some reached their conclusions largely on the basis of the original political debate…long before the threatening language was introduced. And that, sadly, is the real tragedy on display.
You may have missed the 72nd Annual Tony Awards broadcast last week…actually, based on ratings you almost certainly missed it…but even so you may have heard that movie star Robert De Niro dropped the f-bomb in a political statement directed at President Trump. Networks censors were ready and bleeped the offending word, as required by the FCC, but viewers at home still got the message.
While LA and New York are known for liberal politics, it still came as a bit of a surprise when De Niro’s condemnation of President Trump was followed by a standing ovation. The famous Michelle Obama dictum, “when they go low, we go high” was nowhere to be seen.
This is not the first time that awards programs have drawn attention for outrageous or profane statements. U2’s Bono, Cher, Nichole Richie, and others have uttered “fleeting expletives” on awards shows in the past.
Profane political speech comes with a special challenge . According to Frank Bruni, opinion writer for the New York Times,
When you answer name-calling with name-calling and tantrums with tantrums, you’re not resisting him. You’re mirroring him. You’re not diminishing him. You’re demeaning yourselves.
The stunt by De Niro reminds me of a similar statement made by the editorial staff of the CSU student newspaper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, back in 2007. After publishing a very brief editorial very similar in tone to De Niro’s statement, reactions from the community and alumni led to the student newspaper being moved off-campus where it is now published by the independent 501(c)3 non-profit Rocky Mountain Student Media Corporation.
The paper’s editor-in-chief J. David McSwane said in response to the controversy, “While the editorial board feels strongly with regard to first amendment issues, we have found the unintended consequences of such a bold statement to be extremely disheartening.”
Many would agree that the tone of political debate has indeed become “extremely disheartening” on many levels.
You may have missed the 72nd Annual Tony Awards broadcast last week…actually, based on ratings you almost certainly missed it…but even so you may have heard that movie star Robert De Niro dropped the f-bomb in a political statement directed at President Trump. Networks censors were ready and bleeped the offending word, as required by the FCC, but viewers at home still got the message.
