America changed forever just before 3 AM EST on November 9, 2016. Donald Trump's election held major ramifications for our culture, our country and our politics. It also changed journalism forever. Let me explain. Upon learning that Donald Trump had won the presidency, I and much of the mainstream media began trying to figure out how we got the call so wrong. Just one of the last 20 national polls had Trump in the lead, and the final poll margins predicted Hillary Clinton would win by more than 3 points. NBC News analysts opined that Trump would have to pull a (nearly impossible) "inside straight" to win the electoral college. When my network broadcasting team held a pool to predict the winner and the final vote total, not a single person chose Trump. (The winner ended up being an intern who chose Clinton to win with the slimmest margin of victory.) So why didn't the media get it right? Lots of theories out there. Perhaps the minority vote was overestimated or maybe Main Street America was underestimated. It could have been the candidates, their strategies, the moment in history or, most likely, a combination of all of it. It has been and will be the subject of a wave of political post-mortems. For our purposes, the only thing that matters is that the press got it wrong. The people that were supposed to have their finger on the pulse of the public, whose job it is to reflect the reality of our times were amazingly, astoundingly off the mark. And not just some members of the mainstream media (in other words, major broadcast and cable networks, newspapers and magazines), but nearly all of them. That's a problem. But the fact that they got the story wrong at a time when the man that would become president was repeatedly shouting that media was deliberately skewing the news made the error much worse. Millions believed his claim that the media was selling fiction, and now millions had what they could argue was proof. In short, the election cost the mainstream media its credibility. 

 

In this paper, I will attempt to mark out the journalistic landscape as it stands today. While the 2016 U.S. presidential election marked a shift in the changing relationship between the public and the press, the dynamic has been changing for years, thanks to the rapid explosion of social media, digital information sharing and citizen journalism. It has led to changes in the way journalists do their job and, in fact, what constitutes a journalist.  In the same way, we can trace the rise of “fake news” to the ubiquity of social media, raising questions like what constitutes "news"? Is it just information? Can it include opinion? Does it have to be true? Just before leaving office, President Obama said “without some common baseline of facts; without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we'll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible." (1) Journalists and the mainstream media have long been the agreed upon source for that "common baseline of facts". But is that still the case?

 

Today, digital media and social media are dominating the information-sharing landscape. No longer is access restricted to the previous generations' gatekeepers.  In 2007, the number of working journalists in the U.S. was about 100,000. Those would be the only people who theoretically had access to a broad public audience, be it on television, in print or on the radio. In 2016, nearly 287 million Americans counted themselves as internet users, theoretically giving each and every one of them access to at least as large an audience as those journalists from 20 years before.  With that kind of audience, they can disseminate information at any time and reach as many people as the best-funded, most professional news outlets. And they can do it without any ethical, professional or financial restraints whatsoever.  How do we navigate an environment in which social media gives nearly everyone access to everyone else; gives anonymous individuals just as big a mouthpiece as entire news organizations? And what about those who would misuse that power to deliver sensational, hyperbolic, often negative headlines in the pursuit of clicks, followers and cash?  While some, like social media giant Facebook, are trying to educate their users, there is still no app, no technological barrier to reporting or disseminating a lie. Lies mix freely with truths in cyberspace and often, it's tough to tell the difference.

​

Frankly, this is why the news media exists in the first place. Journalism was meant to take the guesswork out of the job of determining the validity of a piece of information. In generations past, the news was the news. You didn't question it. Older generations will tell you what they believed whatever Cronkite or Murrow told them - that their reporting was simply accepted as fact. But what happens when you don't trust the media to distinguish a lie from the truth?  Suddenly, anything you can’t validate with firsthand knowledge becomes open to question. While some may believe that to be a victory for the individual, I would argue that reliance on shared facts and sources is a good thing - for individuals and for our country. Relying on experts who have dedicated their time and effort to building up reliable information frees us up to do other things. That pooled information can become a shared resource that we as a society can use to make decisions on an individual and a collective basis. At its inception, the internet was supposed to be the tool that would dramatically expand this pool of information, allowing global access to facts and knowledge. Somehow, though, the plethora of information, the blurring of the line between fact and fiction as well as the denigration of experts and others (like journalists), have left us drowning in that same pool of information – each piece nearly indistinguishable in terms of validity, trustworthiness and value.   Daniel Moynihan, the late U.S. senator, once said "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." These days, it seems that facts are treated, more than ever, as subjective rather than objective. In late December, the Oxford Dictionary added a bit of emphasis on the way this time in our history will be remembered; declaring that “post-truth” would be its 2016 word of the year. The definition is eye-opening. According to Oxford, “post-truth” is defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” (2) In other words, someone's sense of what they feel is true (the "subjective" truth) is more important than what is factually accurate (the "objective" truth). That has serious consequences for us as individuals, but the consequences for society are equally may be even greater. Fewer people willing to agree on basic facts mean they are less tolerant of opposing viewpoints, leading to a more polarized culture and political environment. Truth becomes a subjective commodity bought and sold by the loudest voices, often the ones that are the most hyperbolic or the ones that appeal to our emotions as opposed to our common sense. With no benchmark for measuring the validity of sources, people focus on the messages they want to hear and shut out dissenting opinions.  Napoleon once said that "History is a set of facts agreed upon." For us to maintain a healthy democracy, we must incorporate the views of both Napoleon and Senator Moynihan and agree to common facts, opposing views and a respectful exchange of ideas.

 

Historically, the press is one of the pillars of American democracy. Known as the “Fourth Estate”, the notion of journalism as the fourth leg of the table stems from Britain in the late 1700’s, but it fit nicely with the nascent American experiment as well, situating a free press alongside the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government. The free press has long been identified as one of the forces that ensures good governance and provides a voice for the people. The founding fathers knew that if governments could suppress news or opinions they didn’t agree with, it would stifle democracy itself. In codifying the freedom of the press in the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson said “our freedom depends on (it).” Nevertheless, examples of the press and the political powers-that-be going head-to-head are as old as the country itself. In America's early days, political party newspapers operating as propaganda mouthpieces waged war on behalf of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. (3) Grover Cleveland hated the press; Ulysses Grant felt he was slandered by the media. Even President Obama had a toxic relationship with the press, believing it to focus on the sensational details of politics as opposed to the big picture. In 2014, Rolling Stone article wrote that, "The White House suspects that reporters intentionally sensationalize their stories; reporters suspect that the White House plays with the facts to get its message out. Both suspicions are correct." (4) Of course, politicians have reason to be suspicious. If you go back in history, the media has had its share of credibility problems. In 1948, the media overwhelmingly predicted victory for Thomas Dewey. The famous image of a smiling Harry Truman holding a newspaper predicting his own defeat foreshadowed a contentious relationship with the press throughout his time in office.  In more recent times, Dan Rather's deceptive reporting about George W. Bush's flight records cost the veteran anchor his job and cast a cloud over his network. Sometimes, trying to be first leads to errors. Multiple networks reportedly wrongly that Obamacare had been struck down by the Supreme Court; another reported that Congresswoman Gabby Giffords had been killed in a shooting while she was still alive. Innocent mistakes or not, all of it chips away at the media's credibility. To some, the race to the splashiest or most sensational headline harkens back to yellow journalism, the blatantly sensational reporting that characterized newspapers at the turn of the last century. But at the time, newspapers were the only game in town - no radio, no TV. Since there was no other way for people to get their news, the public gave journalists the space to re-establish their credibility. If they continue down that road, the news media may not get the same chance this time. Digital media, alt-right sites, online broadcasts, etc. have given the public plenty of options. Now, more than ever, the mainstream media has to fight for its audience’s attention - and its trust.

 

Into this environment, we throw a new generation of journalists, intent on trying to shed light on difficult and complicated issues that face the country and the world. But how?  How do journalists do their job at a time when roughly half the country doesn't trust them? How do you help people distinguish the value and validity of “news” shared on social networking sites as opposed to traditional media sites. How does the public distinguish between citizen journalists who can help spread truth, "yellow journalists" who are dedicated to spreading falsehoods and professional mainstream journalists who are trying to play it down the middle?

​

Let's break it down a little more. "Citizen journalists” are members of the public that spread or disseminate information with the goal of educating or informing their neighbors. They often use social media and do so without the support of a professional or mainstream news outlet. Because of the ubiquitous nature of I-Phone's, the number of people who can create and distribute that kind of information has skyrocketed. Video can be shared instantly on social media sites, then retweeted or shared repeatedly, increasing the potential audience each time. Unfortunately, during that process, the source of that information can become obscured and the context that helps people make sense of the information can often be lost. The complexities of navigating “citizen journalism”, particularly online, come when the anonymity and lack of context make it difficult to ascertain whether you are seeing the whole story or just part of it. During the recent rash of shootings of African-American men by police officers, for example, the vast majority of video, both of the incidents and the aftermath, came from individuals. Those citizen journalists, it can be argued, helped in spreading the truth of what occurred, but hindered a full understanding of the situations and the circumstances that led up to them.

 

Let's take that example one step further. Let's assume that our "citizen journalists" don't have any particular agenda or goal they hope to accomplish in distributing their news, other than informing their neighbors. But others who get their hands on it may decide to use it to further their own ends. Take, for example, the Black Lives Matter movement that drew widespread attention following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in the summer of 2014.  The group, started three years earlier after the Trayvon Martin shooting, lived mostly online up until that moment. After the shooting, it became the platform for a real flesh-and-blood movement. In contrast to past civil rights movements, the organizers were no longer reliant on traditional media, hoping that journalists were in the right place at the right time to capture developments. Instead the organizers were able to use video captured by citizen journalists (both of the crime scene and the subsequent protests) to fuel the story online, bypassing the traditional or mainstream media altogether. As an article in Wired described the environment,"If you want to post a video of a protest or a violent arrest, you put it up on Vine, Instagram or Periscope. If you want to avoid trolls or snooping authorities and you need to coordinate some kind of action, you might chat privately with other activists on GroupMe. If you want to rapidly mobilize a bunch of people you know and you don't want the whole world clued in, you use SMS or WhatsApp. If you want to mobilize a ton of people you might not know and you do want the whole world to talk about it: Twitter." (5) Traditional journalists relied on citizens inside the protests to post and send video, using it as the core of news coverage for weeks. But there was a downside. Even after traditional media began reporting on the movement itself, it was too late for those same media outlets to put a contextual frame around the original information. Judgements were made based on incomplete information and, in some cases, innocent people suffered. Some protesters and movement leaders let their personal agendas shape the message they were sending. In doing so, they violated what we consider to be journalistic ethics, putting the emphasis on objective truth. But the protesters weren't journalists, nor did they pretend to be. They were messengers. Because of the fact that they maintained an agenda, their information was geared toward soliciting a specific reaction. Adopting the symbolic "Hands Up, Don't Shoot” mantra is a perfect example. It was supposed to be an echo of what Brown said to the police officer just before he was shot. However, subsequent police reports and analysis of the crime scene proved it didn't happen. Nevertheless, one protester told the Associated Press, "Even if you don't find that it's true, it's a valid rallying cry. It's just a metaphor." (6) For members of the traditional media that have reported the protesters' versions as truth, it was a cautionary tale about how and when to embrace "citizen journalism".

 

In other situations, like the deaths of Eric Garner and Philando Castile, social media images and accounts provided by individuals were used in conjunction with official accounts to provide a more complete and accurate picture of what happened. In the case of Walter Scott, a black man shot by police in April 2015, the media reported the police version of the shooting which claimed there was a "physical altercation". Not until video of the incident was posted online, showing Scott running away from the officer, did the mainstream media change its reporting and question the official narrative. The patrolman was later charged with murder. When journalistic ethics and standards are used to provide the context that social media typically lacks, the two can reinforce each other and provide a strong case for the truth.

 

There have been cases, however, when the traditional media’s amplification of social media images and accounts accords those accounts a sense of legitimacy that they don't deserve.  During the period of unrest and revolution that tore through more than half a dozen countries in 2011, citizen journalists became the key avenues through which the Western world understood the so-called “Arab Spring” in real time. (7) Utilizing social media, people inside countries like Egypt and Libya were able to bypass their own governments’ attempts at stifling information, often becoming the sole source of information. In retrospect, it is obvious that their intent was to build Western opposition against their governments while simultaneously portraying themselves and their compatriots as martyrs. Yet, because the traditional media had so little access to pictures and information regarding this hugely impactful global story, caveats about the sources of information were often left out. Critical context and framework for the information went missing.  Why is that important?  Just as in the case of the BLM protesters, f we know that video of a certain incident is shot and distributed by a certain group of people, we can weigh what kind of agenda they may have, judge their ethics and their purposes and place appropriate weight on their version of the truth. But if we don't have that information, it's not possible for the public to accurately assess the validity or value of what they are telling you.

 

Ours is a culture of clicks and likes, in which people often measure the success of their “posts” by the amount of attention it gets. Instead of concerning themselves with the broader ripple effect, many may believe they are simply exchanging information; commenting on their environment and what is happening in the world.  But the one who receives that message may not see it the same way. Sarcasm or an attempt at a joke could be taken seriously. Due to a lack of context and oftentimes, the inability to track back to the original source of a tweet or a post, the intent of a message can be lost. But there is a level of responsibility inherent in being able to broadcast a message to thousands and by extension, even hundreds of thousands of people. It is the same level of responsibility one would expect of people in a crowded theater. It is not the time to yell “fire”, whether it's a joke or not. In both cases, it is incumbent on the messenger to consider the implications of his or her message. And yet it's not hard to find numerous examples of people positing pictures or messages online, only to find out later that the viral nature of their own words and actions cost them friends, jobs or career. It seems we still need reminding of the pervasiveness and indelible nature of the internet. At the same time, however, others say it's unreasonable to expect "citizen journalists" to act as traditional journalists. What's more, they are gue that may be a good thing. In the book, "Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights", the authors argue "We must allow citizen journalists the flexibility to respond to the events and types of news that add to democratic discourse. Casting too many expectations on the form, content and values of citizen journalism limits it." ​(8)

​

As journalists, we cannot pretend that the dramatic cultural and technological changes we are discussing are happening outside the sphere of what we do. As we mentioned previously, the news is no longer controlled by the traditional gatekeepers. The digital media has torn those gates down. Access once enjoyed by media conglomerates is now open to anyone with a twitter handle and online access.  What’s more, the number of people getting their news online has skyrocketed as well.  According to a Pew Research study , 62% of all American adults get news on a social networking site, with Reddit, Facebook and Twitter taking the top spots. (9) Facebook by itself has more than 1.8 billion monthly users. It’s become a breeding ground for sharing all kinds of information – from viral lies to buzzy gossip to mainstream articles. Suddenly, sites that have been built to promote the distribution of information are tasked with policing it. The effort is very much a work in progress - and a challenge that becomes more complicated with each passing day. 

 

So what of the so-called traditional journalist? The member of the mainstream media? What about the individual once described as an “ink-stained wretch”, toiling over typewriters-turned-laptops, churning out copy and scripts that make up the evening news and the morning paper? For them, sharing information is not enough. With the exception of those who live in the opinion pages, traditional journalists are expected to stick with the goal of uncovering facts and reporting them. According to the Society of Professional Journalists, journalists should, among other things, "be honest, take responsibility for their work, provide context, support the open and civil exchange of views and never deliberately distort facts." (10) That, in itself, seems to raise the bar for the traditional journalist, but should it? Shouldn't anyone who seeks to distribute information do it honestly? Well, how about this: should they be forced to?

​

In his book, "We're All Journalists Now", Scott Gant describes the – the difficulty of distinguishing a so-called “citizen journalist” (a civilian who is disseminating information ostensibly for the purpose of informing other civilians) and “professional journalists” (who get paid for the job and, as professionals, are expected to adhere to ethical and legal guidelines). As he puts it, “the lines distinguishing professional journalists from other people who disseminate information, ideas and opinions to a wide audience have been blurred, perhaps beyond recognition, by forces both inside and outside the media themselves....It is harder than ever to tell who is a journalist." (11) The book was published nearly a decade ago, but the implications are staggering. If the definition is someone that disseminates information, then the pool of journalists in America has become unfathomably large. But Gant embraces that, even wondering if that pool of people should be afforded legal protections under the First Amendment guarantees of the Freedom of the Press. One problem with that - journalistic "privilege" prevents journalists from being forced to reveal information they would typically have to reveal if they were ordinary citizens. What if an I-Phone in your pocket and a Twitter account makes you a disseminator of journalistic information? Where do the rights and responsibilities of a journalist that works at the New York Times end and yours begin?  

 

Let's first admit that agendas are just as relevant to media outlets as they are to individuals posting pictures or stories online. But in both cases, there may be more at stake than promoting an agenda. News organizations have a reputation to protect, for example. Any kind of failure to live up to the ethical standards can hurt their credibility. While we may question the severity of the media "spin", it is hard to argue that the vast majority of mainstream news organizations don't try to put accurate information on the air or in print.  Journalistic ethics go back as far as the development of the printing press in the 15th century when editors assured readers that they "printed the impartial truth based on 'matters of fact'". They include seeking truth and reporting it, minimizing harm, acting independently (without real or perceived conflicts of interest) and being accountable and transparent. By that definition, every single person that distributes "news" or information anonymously or without providing as much context as possible is violating journalistic ethics. A significant portion of "citizen journalists" could likely fall into that bucket. In the cases of "fake news" that we discussed above, all four tenets are violated repeatedly. I would argue that the public still recognizes ethics as a yardstick for credibility. And while cultural and technological factors will always play a role in what kind of "news" gains traction, I would argue that credibility will be the make-or-break factor when it comes to the long-term health of the journalistic profession. And while some may have lost confidence in the mainstream news organizations, even fewer seem to have confidence in the news coming to them via social media.  By not being afraid to take responsibility for their reporting and by being transparent about their methods and findings, mainstream journalists still have an opportunity to reclaim the mantle of credibility. 

 

So let’s look at it from the other side. Should you, as an individual, be held to the same standards as a newspaper or a TV network? I believe the answer should be yes, at least when that individual could reasonably expect the information they’ve disseminated to influence people or events.  As the law stands, both a media organization and an individual can be found guilty of defamation if the statement in question is false and it can be proven that someone suffered harm as a result. I don’t believe that people should be given a pass because they are retweeting what someone else says. Just as a TV network or a newspaper can be held responsible for what it publishes (even if it does not originate with them), I believe the same standards should apply to individuals.

 

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you can avoid the legal implications, either through luck or anonymity. Why should the average person care whether they uphold the standards of a traditional journalist? Perhaps a modern version of the Golden Rule could apply. If you represent others accurately and fairly and express your best understanding of the world around you, others will do the same. This is particularly important when reinforcing social norms and mores online. The reason why things like body-shaming are frowned upon is not because of a rule or guideline distributed by the World Wide Web. Instead, the online community relies on a measure of self-policing. Some may argue that it's a naive approach to dealing with the glut of misinformation out there, but if spreading false information becomes so virulent and impactful that it takes on the same stigma as, say, racial slurs, we could see a broader outcry as well as a more effective practice of individual and community policing of cyberspace.

 

As we speak, traditional (or mainstream) media is trying to navigate an increasingly complicated, interwoven relationship with digital media and its users.  The ability to obtain information and communicate instantly has transformed the profession.  And while we’ve explored some of the pitfalls of the medium, there are certainly advantages. Sources can be reached and interviewed over email and information can be gathered from a wide array of easily accessible sources. Crowdsourcing is a perfect example. When the Washington Post's David Farenthold wanted to find out if Donald Trump had followed through with his promises to donate millions to charities, he realized quickly that he couldn't get what he needed through official channels. Farenthold instead decided to reach out to the public via social media. In October 2016, he said he realized "I could publicly reach out to the big (charities), they would see what I was looking into and so might others. Maybe I would get answers from people I wasn't asking initially. So I then realized that I could do it (use social media) in a broader way..." (12)  The benefit for Farenthold was that thousands of people essentially did his digging for him, and he was able to uncover facts about Trump's charitable gifts that he likely would never been able to uncover on his own. To put the resources of an entire community or a society within reach of investigative journalists gives them tools they never had before. The collective knowledge of an entire group of people can be focused on answering a single question. And what if the conversation isn't directed by a journalist?  It can still be valuable. In the book, "Participatory Journalism", the authors write that "ordinary people... have provided intimate looks within the smallest of communities, sharing local and even personal information and ideas in depth and detail. They have carried on millions of topical conversations through discussion forums, comment threads and blog posts. In all of these online activities and many more, they have taken on roles and carried out functions that sound quite a bit like, well... journalism." (13) But having this kind of technology and access can be a double-edged sword.  After all, a tool is only useful in the way that the person who wields it intends it to be. As Time Magazine put it in early February, “Technology has placed a communications revolution in nearly every American palm. When mixed with the economic frustrations of a globalized economy, this power unleashed a new populism. In the history of human beings, it has never been easier to organize groups, for good or ill, or to communicate both truth and lies, to question authority and to undermine the answers that authority gives.” (14) It's also never been easier to mislead the public.

 

Biased media is not new. In fact, it’s been around as long as the printing press has. The idea that a select group of people choose what information is and isn’t disseminated has always led to concerns that people are only telling you one side of the story. It’s one thing if the bias is made clear, for instance on editorial pages of newspapers. But when there’s an attempt at disguising misinformation as truth, it is much more nefarious. In the hands of governments, it can be labeled propaganda. But today, we find the same kind of propaganda and deliberate bias being promoted by individuals.  Today, the rise of “fake news” has pushed the kind of biased media that was once restricted to the fringes to the center of the public discourse. While the term gets thrown around a lot these days, the real “fake news” (so to speak) can be described as a deliberate attempt by people and organizations, some motivated by money, others by political ideology, to intentionally plant and circulate false news stories. The Washington Post called those creating the intentionally false posts and tweets the "new yellow journalists". Two of them describe how they play on people's fears, religious beliefs and deep-seated anger about political figures to elicit reactions, including getting them to share the fake posts with their own followers and friends. As one says, "All successful journalism has shock value". (15) And if you base the metric of success on the sheer number of clicks or likes or retweets you get, then they are definitely successful. You could also base success on how much of a reaction you generate. A man named Gregg Phillips posted tweeted two messages in mid-November, each alleging that three million non-citizens had voted illegally in the general election. Two weeks later, President-Elect Trump himself able to refer to use those tweets as the foundation for his claims that he would have won the popular vote if not for those 3 million illegally cast votes. Media outlets reached out to Phillips to ask him what he was basing his information on. He wouldn't tell anyone. Why not? He said he didn't want the media twisting his words. Trump's tweet was retweeted more than 53,000 times. Even though Politifact and other media outlets declared

it patently false, Trump kept tweeting it and people no doubt believed it. Why? Well, for some it goes back to the idea of embracing a subjective rather than an objective truth. But some of the people creating the posts say the audience either isn't savvy enough to know the difference between a lie and the truth or just don't care. Paul Horner, who spearheaded his own fake-news empire, said "People are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore - I mean, that's how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn't care because they'd already accepted it. It's real scary. I've never seen anything like it." (16) But is that fair? I would argue there is another reason why people might believe these "fake news" publications or anything, really, that purports to report information that has been otherwise repressed somehow. It's their lack of trust in pretty much anything the mainstream media is telling them. This is where the crisis of credibility really hurts. People instead turn to "alternative" media sites. There, they find stories that contradict the mainstream media and, because they already assume that those sources are telling lies, the alternatives must be the truth. That lack of confidence in the truthfulness of journalists and the media at large is one of the most critical components to the changing environment surrounding the journalistic profession and, quite possibly, poses the biggest challenge.

           

We should take a moment to point out that there is a clear difference between unintentional error (misinformation) and deliberate lies designed to mislead (disinformation). Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. As the Politifact website said, “fake news swims in the same electronic currents as everyday exaggerations, hard-charging opinion and political hyperbole. That makes it seem normal, even when it’s just crazy, made-up stories…”  Part of the problem is that even when some news entities make what they describe as honest errors, others may insist they are deliberate, alleging an agenda on behalf of the journalist. One way to address that – be wary of those who post and circulate information anonymously. Journalists who are willing to attach their name to their words are fulfilling their ethical responsibilities. Admitting error and working to correct the record is a path to a more transparent and more truthful media.

 

Unfortunately, there is much damage to repair. In September 2016, Gallup asked people whether they trusted the media. Less than a third were willing to say they even had a "fair amount" of trust in the media to "report the news fully, accurately and fairly." In the 44 years that Gallup had been asking the question, the number had never been lower.  (17) Why? Many blame the television news media, which has become increasingly polarized in recent years, representing right and left wings ideologies, often at the expense of more moderate views. I tend to believe that many journalists try to be fair, my own experiences in the newsroom haven't always borne that out. Several years ago, while sitting in the newsroom, a Supreme Court decision was announced that was seen as a victory for cultural liberals and a great roar of applause rose up from the "journalists" sitting around me. I was stunned. How could people who were supposed to be working hard to report the news without bias voice their bias so openly? While I don't believe that such reactions preclude people's ability to report fairly, I have seen political ideologies more openly expressed inside the newsroom today than ever before. Failing to keep our opinions and our profession separate is a slippery slope. As someone who knows how easy it is to color a report or slant a question just through the choice of words you use, I can assure you that bias is not often announced, but bleeds through much more surreptitiously.

 

Take for example, a series of incidents that occurred shortly after President Trump took office.  On the morning of February 15, starting just before 4 am ET, President Trump sent out a series of tweets apparently inspired by questions raised about his links to Russia. He slammed “fake news media” and allegations of Russian interference in the election, blaming the “Russian connection nonsense” on the Clinton campaign. Furthermore, he claimed that major news networks harbored “conspiracy theories and blind hatred” toward him. Did he have a point?Well, the day before, NBC’s political director Chuck Todd had kicked off his show by framing the alleged Russian links as “arguably the biggest Presidential scandal involving a foreign government since Iran-Contra” and “a class 5 political hurricane.”  Months later, the allegations of Russian interference are still unproven. Reports like that may not amount to so-called conspiracy theories, but if the media is going to stave off questions about its neutrality and even-handedness, dialing down that sort of rhetoric, particularly in headlines, is a good place to begin.

 

For those who harbor doubts about the mainstream media’s ability to give them the straight story, there are others out there that are more than willing to feed that perception. As we discussed, it’s the kind of insidious misinformation that gets into our twitter feeds or mailboxes and causes us to doubt what common sense tells us is true. Howard Rheingold has built a mini-industry around teaching so-called “crap detection” – in other words, how to tell accurate information from inaccurate information, disinformation and misinformation.  But relying on common sense isn't enough. In an article for the Digital Pedagogy Lab, Kris Shaffer argues that while intentional falsehoods may be relatively easy to detect, coordinated digital deception combined with an understanding of how social media distributes news creates a much more formidable foe. He argues that the keys include double-checking the information you share (in other words being more responsible with what you distribute) and adhering as close as possible to the truth without exaggeration (and being prepared to repeat it over and over). He adds that we must stand up for others who may be targeted and against those who spread misinformation while simultaneously working to impress these guidelines on others. (18) Every single one of those guidelines is applicable to anyone that shares information - be it online, on television or anywhere else.

 

A difficulty that we face as journalists comes when attempts to provide context to the news you are reporting put you in an ideological conflict with your subject.  For instance, current cable networks may appear to have an agenda when it comes to covering Washington politics because they take a "devil's advocate" position. A possible solution? Allow your subjects to speak for themselves as much as possible, forcing them to support their position with facts as opposed to rebutting them at every turn or shouting them down. Officials and experts should be given deference when speaking about their specific area of knowledge. Don't argue. Acknowledge that there may be alternative views (if that's the case) and do whatever you can to provide members of your audience access to those alternative views or contradictory facts. So therein lies another question. Whose opinions matter? Social media has put everyone’s opinions on an even playing field…. But should it? In this case, truth is not relative. It’s hard to imagine anyone arguing that the local mechanic is just as well-positioned to make a determination about our foreign policy as the person who spent their life assessing geopolitics, even if the former has more Twitter followers.

 

That brings me to the power of social media - a phenomenon that has transformed the way we communicate with each other and learn about the world around us. It's power has even transformed our politics. Although he was still a candidate when he joined in 2007, Obama was the first President to use social media, joining Twitter in that year and using Facebook to help build a base of millions of voters during his initial run for the White House. Scott Goodstein, who help Obama increase his presence on more than dozen social networks said, "These social networks are shopping malls that have millions of people already hanging out in them. So the question becomes, how to find the people that are going to be your advocates and have them talk about your message?" (19) It was a lesson that Obama's successor, Donald Trump, would learn well. Trump himself has said that he uses Twitter to escape the filter of the media. In doing so, he can send a message, free of context and in an environment in which he is unable to be questioned about its meaning or intent. The media is left to speculate about what he may or may not mean, allowing him to shape the message later. Trump told Business Insider in an interview from January 16, “I thought I'd do less (tweeting), but I'm covered so dishonestly by the press ... I can go bing bing bing and I just keep going and they put it on and as soon as I tweet it out ... I find it very accurate ... they can't do much when you tweet it…” (20) The lack of context and accountability (at least in real time) is one of the primary paradigm shifts in the way this President has chosen to communicate with the American public. Currently, Trump owns one of the 50 most followed Twitter handles in the world and is adding 52,000 followers a day. He uses Twitter as a promotional tool, a way to vent his feelings, a hammer with which to go after his enemies and a way to guide the media to his subject of choice, That last point is particularly significant. An issue can go from being the third or fourth most important of the day to the top story if the President tweets about it, simply because of his status. However, the media is caught between a rock and a hard place. Even if journalists feel they are being manipulated, if they are being manipulated by the most powerful man in the country, that's still news! 

​

It should be pointed out that it is unprecedented in modern times for mainstream journalists to be forced into a kind of daily combat with the President of the United States. Donald Trump made media bashing a central tenet of his campaign, calling debate moderators unfair, and labeling journalists "the worst people I've ever met." (21)  There are likely many of his supporters among the millions who hold a low opinion of journalists. This paper is not meant to indicate a political position, but suffice it to say that it is difficult to be even-handed while covering someone who clearly doesn't respect you and calls your honesty into question. The way the press covers this President will go a long way toward determining who is still standing with their credibility intact at the end of his time in office. Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote shortly after the inauguration, “Journalists shouldn’t rise to the bait and decide to treat Trump as an enemy. Recalling at all times that their mission is truth-telling and holding public officials accountable, they should dig in, paying far more attention to actions than to sensational tweets or briefing-room lies — while still being willing to call out falsehoods clearly when they happen.” (22) Going forward, it is incumbent for journalists to not just tell the public why they should be trusted, but to show them why. Transparency, vigilance in getting the story correct as well as abandoning any hint of engaging in a personal agenda – these are the keys to regaining the public trust.

 

With all of this going on, you would think that college programs would be taking a closer look at the phenomena changing journalism today. But so far, the evidence is thin. Looking at some of the top journalism programs in the country, I discovered that they have been slow to embrace digital literacy and its role in the profession itself. At Emerson College for example, rated the top journalism college in the U.S., there are classes that teach blogging and best web practices, but I find it hard to believe that college students these days don’t know how to blog or maintain an online presence. My sense is that these courses need to be advanced to the point where you are taking into account the tools students already know how to use and teaching them to integrate those tools into the journalistic medium. In other words, take it to the next level. Exploring the ethical and legal issues we’ve touched on here also needs to be a focus. The key problem, however, is that there seems to be no indication that any of these courses are rethinking journalism itself. I believe that digital media as the new skin that journalism will live in going forward. Digital communication and social media can no longer be treated as simply one part of modern journalism. It impacts all parts. It is transforming the way we think about, create and consume the news. It is a means, not an end – a doorway to obtaining the information needed to do the job accurately, not simply the way to update a blog or send a tweet.

 

So where does all of this leave us? For those already working in the journalism field, the rise of social and digital media provides a challenge, while the rise of “fake news” and the relativism that is the hallmark of a “post-truth” society provides an opportunity. I would argue that traditional or mainstream media must take the position that the old journalistic adages are more important now than ever. Now is the time to reevaluate the relationship between traditional journalism and digital media, seek opportunities for cooperation while being up front about the challenges. Now is the time to reinvigorate the old ethical standards of transparency and context and honesty in information-sharing. And now is the time to recognize that each one of has a stake in the value and the veracity of the information we share in cyberspace every day.

 

A common source for truth is a critical part of a democratic society. It is what allows us to talk to each other instead of past each other and keeps those who would hold the reins of power from hiding information. As I have made clear in this paper, the rapid spread of digital media (as well as the ability for users to be anonymous and access large audiences) has complicated the process of establishing a common source for truth by offering more "versions" of it.  But the access to more information can help us find the truth if we will allow experts to point us in the right direction, and let our own common sense (and a little fact-checking) help us distinguish fact from fiction.

 

Confronting the public’s skepticism about modern journalistic agendas may be just as difficult.Wading through the rising tide of disinformation and fake news means journalists must pick their battles – pushing back when necessary, but refusing to engage in tit-for-tat battles that end up with both sides getting down into the metaphorical mud.  My advice for journalists would be to treat your audience as a group of people with a stake in understanding the truth – not just seeing your point of view. Some cynics may argue that it's naive to think that the news media is out for anything other than readers and ratings, but there are good, responsible journalists out there every day simply trying to report the facts and get them into the public eye.  To those journalists, I say use your skills and your mouthpiece to provide more information not less. Offer hyperlinks to other reports, government data and even opposing viewpoints. Reject the false dichotomy that one media outlet is always right and another is always wrong. Reject the idea that people only want part of the story (specifically the part that they already agree with). Offer them a plethora of information and let them choose their own path to gain the context and insight they deem necessary. As I said before, this means that the media must break out of its practice of offering only the most extreme viewpoints and provide access to some of the same sources a professional journalist might use: government data, experts, etc. Point your audience in the direction of the information and let the people find their way from there. To do all of this, however, the media needs to do more than change its style of programming. It needs to change the way it views the public itself. News consumers must be accorded the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the question of whether they want to know more, not less. The audience, as they say, is listening. According to Pew’s 2016 report on the state of the news media, the majority of news outlets had increased their traffic from the year before and almost three-quarters of “digital native” sites (sites that were born on the web) saw their traffic increase as well, with nearly half jumping at least 10%. (23) Modern technology has largely wiped out the barrier of access. The public’s appetite for a different kind of news coverage is obvious, and, to me, there is no more important time than now for journalists to reclaim the factual high ground.

 

For the public, I would encourage individuals to reject the notion that political differences are the same as ideological differences (politics being more transitory and less likely to be associated with personal meaning that ideology). And even ideological differences cannot prevent us from from functioning as a society if we keep our ideology and politics in a well-marked box and refuse to let those that promote divisiveness keep us from finding common ground in other areas. My hope is that the backlash to fake news has already begun and that there is already a growing recognition that calling opponents liars and perpetuating obvious falsehoods goes beyond run-of-the-mill spin.  Whether you work in the business of journalism, post articles online or simply flip through online articles, everyone has a stake in trying to push back against those that would purposely misinform people.  Be on guard for agendas when it comes to those who provide the news, and be particularly wary of those who hide behind anonymity. Seek out opposing viewpoints, even if they initially make you angry. They have a tendency to soften your heart.

 

As Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth professor who studies fact-checking, said: “There’s a real darkness here if we give up on facts. Standing up for facts is a kind of patriotic act, and a necessary one.”(24) After the election, I predicted that more people would turn their backs on journalists and the mainstream news media. I feared we had failed in our mission to find the truth and report it. But I've found that more and more people seem to be offering those same journalists another chance. They are becoming more invested in finding facts and calling on the mainstream media to be that common source for truth. They don't just want any news, but news that they are making an effort to determine is valid and, therefore, valuable. The truth, and the search for it, isn't dead after all.