Screen shot of Huffington Post
Questions posed to me for an assignment exploring social media and the truth:
• How do you know what you know?
• Name one new thing you learned using a social media site today and explain why you believe it is true.
• What source did you use to acquire this information?
• At times, are social media sites reliable for obtaining credible information?
Hmmm, how do I know what I know? That’s difficult to answer. I feel sort of like a detective. I observe, that’s huge. I research, a lot. I listen, sometimes just because I know I should. And I make connections. Based on prior knowledge, and tricks I’ve picked up over the years, I make connections that form patterns and help guide me pretty close to complete understanding.
Ok, so I don’t do that every time I come across something new, because before I do any of that I judge a new thing’s significance, whether it is worthy of further thought and exploration. I mean who has time to research everything? But the more you do it the easier it becomes and the more prior knowledge you build on.
For instance, I follow certain news sites on Facebook, some because I like to share their content with my friends, some that report industry news and others that I find curious. I’m growing pretty tired of the flashy, make-me-have-to-click headlines, and finding a far fetched connection or an opinionated article lacking sources or depth.
One such article that appeared in my Facebook feed tonight was from Huffington Post’s Media page, which read “The Evening News Will Be All White Guys Again,” (Mirkinson, 2014) with photos of Scott Pelley at CBS, Brian Williams at NBC and now David Muir at ABC — all caught in goofy expressions. What follows this tempting headline are three paragraphs. Three paragraphs pointing out the obvious — that the major networks would now all have white men in the coveted anchor spot. They add a couple of sentences for context, that between 2009 and 2011 Sawyer and Katie Couric both having anchor spots, put them in the majority, and that before 2006 the position was also dominated by white men. They add that PBS is now the only broadcast network to rely on women as anchors. No sources needed, all indisputable facts.
In reality, I wasn’t surprised, maybe a bit disappointed that they didn’t include more about the situation women face in the news business, but not surprised. I’ve come to expect a certain product from these “sharable news stories” put up on Facebook, and I take them in stride.
And I’m biased, I’m a woman in the field — it’s an important issue for me, one which I’m acutely aware, having held many positions in the newsroom, most recently in management. We’re treated differently, we’re paid less and people expect us to be softer, and are taken aback when we’re assertive — ask any woman managing anything in journalism — it’s the most annoying thing ever.
But bias aside, the reality of the situation is alarming. And there is more context to add to the current situation. Jill Abramson, who served as the first women executive editor of the New York Times, was fired last month and there is much talk about how women fare in the newsroom. Barbara Walters, the first woman to be a network anchor, retired.
The situation overall isn’t good either. In 1991, women in journalism made about 81 percent of what men made; in more than 20 years that has only increased to 83 percent. A percentage that also hasn’t changed significantly in the last 20 years is the number of women working in journalism. At newspapers, women represent about 36 percent of the staff and in television news, about 40 percent. That number goes down the higher you get in the food chain (Pew, 2014).
Screen shot from Pew Research Center
It's even worse when you look at racial diversity. The number of people who aren't white has actually decreased in journalism, from 13 to 12 percent, according to the American Society of News Editors. And minorities felt the newsroom cuts the hardest.
I understand what HuffPost was doing. They were trying to make a quick point, trigger a discussion, recruit a few thousand or so people to share their attention-grabbing headline. Hey, this is a business after all, and clicks do matter.
But I was nevertheless, disappointed.
And it fit in quite nicely with the subject of a book I’m reading, “Blur: How to Know What’s True in the Age of Information Overload.”
This example would be what the authors Kovach and Rosenstiel (2010) call Journalism of Assertion, which favors speed to depth.
While this form of news may leave a hole, a deep desire for more substance, I understand why it exists. You see, it’s two fold. We like that kind of stuff, we give them the clicks they so desire, they make money, rinse and repeat. And the news organizations stretch themselves so thin that reporters don’t have time for context, for deep research and time-consuming interviews. There is no time for the Journalism of Verification, which favors fully understanding an issue and providing all the necessary facts and context, as Kovach and Rosenstiel (2010) explain it. People claim they desire this type of journalism, yet the churned out stories are bringing in the profits.
At least the Huffington Post is trying to make succinct what they do have. Even without any sources, some quick research shows that they got right what they did have, so kudos there.
Some Facebook-favorite sites don’t even try to mask their slant and their lack of fact finding is glaring. Like The Daily Kos post today, get a load of this mouthful: “Sen. Thad Cochran narrowly survived a vicious Tea-Party-and-Koch-fuled primary last night, reminding me to never again give those joker teabaggers any credit.” The blog post goes on to make some really interesting connections, none of which are sourced or based on any stated fact. You could only trust it if you already agreed with it.
Screen shot of Dailykos.com
“We call this model the Journalism of Affirmation, for its appeal is in affirming the preconceptions of the audience, assuring them, gaining their loyalty and then converting that loyalty into advertising revenue,” says Kovach and Rosenstiel (2010), quite brilliantly.
But not all is bad on social media — it’s all getting a bit gamey, sure — but some substance can be scraped from the depths of social media.
For instance, tonight I learned through an Associated Press report, shared on Facebook by CBS, that a federal appeals court in Denver ruled in favor of gay marriage, and putting the issue into context they pointed out that the issue is one step closer to the Supreme Court. The story has all kinds of sources, interview-based and from statements, they have background on other developments. It’s an actual news story and I learned something, was presented facts that I could dissect and distinguish each source’s credibility.
The New York Times, NPR and the Christian Science Monitor taught me today that the Supreme Court ruled authorities must have a warrant before searching someone’s cell phone, all were pretty thorough thankfully, as this is such an important story, relevant to our individual lives, the state of our Democracy and even freedom of the press.
Some other notable takeaways from Facebook today:
- I learned that researchers are on their way to making a new condom design (courtesy of Upworthy)
- There is a place in Puerto Rico that makes bean flavored ice cream (thanks for letting me know Uncommon Caribbean)
- North Korea said they will retaliate if a new James DeFranco movie mocking their leader is released (I think they all had this one).
- And Emperor penguins are adapting to climate change (CBS gave us this one).
Sure, I could have learned about these developments elsewhere, but Facebook made it easy and as I scroll down sifting through the overload, the jacked up headlines that I know have nothing under the hood give me something to snark at, to compare and contrast.
But I’m a journalist, I naturally gravitate toward news that I observe to be thorough, well reported. I fear some people don’t even notice when a “news” story doesn’t have one source, one interview, or any context — things to look for when trying to identify credibility — and when it is just bloated with jazzy headlines that don’t go on to fulfill that initial promise.
I’ve been pushing myself to use my clicks like my democratic right to a vote, but I’m studying media, I’m in the field — I need to see what the bad stuff looks like, so I guess that makes me part of the problem. And hey, perhaps we need the bad anyhow, to make us appreciate the good.
So I guess I know what I know because I pay attention, at least most of the time, and thanks to Facebook, the bearer of both good and bad news.
References:
Anderson, M. (2014). As Jill Abramson exits the NY Times, a look at how
Kos. (2014). Thad Cochran survives thanks to Democrats. The Daily Kos.
Kovack, B., Rosenstiel, T. (2010). Blur: How to Know What’s True in the
Age of Information Overload. Bloomsbury USA, New York.
Mirkinson, J. (2014). With Diane Sawyer Leaving, The Evening News Will Be
