Tag: journalism

Categories
Opinions

COVID-19: reality or over-exaggeration?

It seems as though most people want to know what is happening where they live concerning COVID-19.

In times like these, the media plays a major role in keeping citizens informed.  However, some people, often ones who believe in irrational conspiracy theories, claim the media is exaggerating to scare the public. Others take advantage of this time of crisis to share false information and create more panic.

Journalists have been, and always will be, judged no matter what they do. If they report on COVID-19, they’re only making things worse and contributing to the panic. But if they don’t, they’re hiding something.

A journalist’s main purpose is to share the truth. And while some people might argue that what the media is saying is false, I would say that as long as they have enough proof to back up their claims, it’s the truth—at least for now. For example, there have been claims that COVID-19 was designed in either the United States or in China. There is no proof verifying the claims. We should only be trusting fact-checked information.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier François Legault hold daily press conferences to keep the public up to date on the COVID-19 situation, both in terms of its spread and in terms of measures to slow it. In my opinion, if they are doing this it’s because this is what citizens want. Besides, even if you don’t want to trust the media, don’t you think you should at least trust your government?

This is a rhetorical question, as I know some would say no.

Take my father as an example. My whole life, I have never seen him watch Canadian news as much as he does now. Every day, he turns on the TV and watches Trudeau and Legault live, then watches Radio-Canada in the evening, because he wants to know how the situation is evolving. It’s during these times of crisis that people need the media the most.

A Concordia University student, Hershey Blackman, created a public Facebook group called MTL Coronavirus on March 13, the day Legault announced that schools, CEGEPs and universities would be closing for at least two weeks.

Blackman explained that he thought it was important for people to have a place to “connect with each other,” and share information about the coronavirus, their feelings, as well as memes, to stay entertained. Every day, there are around 50 new posts, which shows that people on social media want to talk about the virus, whether it’s by discussing their concerns or posting funny memes.

This is another reason why we absolutely need to be careful with the information we see and share. Most people want to know what’s happening, and some are even willing to click on any link including the word “coronavirus” and share it. Always check the source’s credibility.

There have been many cases of false information circulating in reference to the virus—such as a French man who posted a 25-minute video explaining how he thinks COVID-19 was created back in 2004. Radio-Canada confirmed that what he published was false information.

A family doctor from New York City, Mikhail Varshavski, discussed on his YouTube channel how some news outlets and television networks are presenting facts in a manner that scares people. For example, National Geographic published an article titled “Here’s what coronavirus does to the body,” in which, as Varshavski noted, the writer tends to use scary sentences followed by more rationalized explanations.

For this reason, I think people should trust the media, as journalists continue to work hard to report on the situation. Some people will listen and some won’t, it’s that simple. Just like some people have been taking all the possible precautions, staying in quarantine and respecting social distancing, while others are still gathering in groups and leaving their homes unnecessarily.

I think the Montreal Gazette has been doing a very good job of presenting unbiased facts without inflicting anxiety and panic.

While it is a time of fear and anxiety, we must stay cautious about where we get information from. So in the meantime, stay home if you can, FaceTime your friends and family and get your news from credible sources.

 

Categories
Opinions

Another article about COVID-19

Over the years as a journalism student, I have struggled with the balance between staying informed and staying sane.

Living through Trump’s presidency, dire times for climate change and now COVID-19, it’s hard to find ways to turn my brain off and take care of myself.

Even though this is something that I have been trying to balance for over five years, I can’t say I have come close to mastering it, even prior to this pandemic.

As we unpack some strategies on how to stay calm during these wild times, remember that I am right there with you—an unnerved and anxious girl doing her best.

For some, the news is simply too much. This being said, it’s quite difficult to stay informed without listening to at least some type of news, as you don’t want to depend on second-hand information. Although, in a situation like COVID-19, where it feels like you must stay informed at all times, I would suggest designating a specific time of your day to check in on what’s happening.

Things are moving quickly, but they are also moving very, very slowly. We are likely to be in this mess for quite some time, so together let’s learn how to share our brainpower with the outside world and within our apartments (or wherever it might be that you’re self-isolating.)

I’ll be honest, yesterday I spent a lot of the day on the couch. I began to ruminate about how long I’m going to be in this situation, how bored I am and when I’ll get my life back. This type of thinking is normal during a crisis, but one thing that brought me back to a more realistic mindset was to remember how lucky I am.

The other day, one of my friends said, “I can’t think of another person that is less affected by this than me.”

For me, this is absolutely true. My challenge is finding a balance between making space for myself to feel anxious and uncomfortable during this time while keeping perspective. I have so much privilege in this situation and it’s harmful to disregard that.

I’m in a family of health-care workers. They are lovely stress balls of worry, as they see what’s happening on the front lines. Yes, somedays I am twiddling my thumbs, but that in itself is a privilege.

Despite the privilege, let yourself feel whatever you are feeling, even if it’s self-pity and despair. Then, get up and move. We can do this.

One thing you can do during these times is reach out on social media and see if anyone needs help. If you are able to, see if you can pick up groceries for someone, walk their dog, donate to the food bank or help promote small businesses. Even just reaching out to your circle to see who needs to chat could be beneficial.

Social media has been a positive force through some of these crazy times. My echo-chamber is filled with activity suggestions, poignant comics and uplifting posts—yours can be too! Unfollow anyone that is making you anxious, and let it be a sanctuary of helpful tips and tricks. It’s helped me feel less alone—maybe it will help you too!

Although it’s a time where people need to come together, also keep in mind that you need to take care of yourself. Keep your house clean, create a space that makes you feel calm and perhaps make a solid schedule of tasks you’d like to complete each day.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that COVID-19 is taking over every single conversation I’ve had in the past little while. Heck, it even took over this whole article. Try, if you can, to distract yourself throughout the day as well. Even if you can only do it for 10 minutes, we can start there. Learn a silly dance, go for a run or play a new videogame.

As cliche as it sounds, it looks like we are really just going to have to take one day at a time. Oh! And call your mom, that always helps. 

 

Graphic by Sasha Axenova

Categories
News

Concordia student delegation hits NASH82

NASH is a four-day conference held by the Canadian University Press (CUP), which offers various workshops and lectures to journalism students. Whether the subject was global reporting, Indigenous coverage, hate groups in Canada or the climate crisis, the idea behind the conference was to provide tools for students to report accurately on issues that affect their university communities, but also to make the most out of their own newspaper.

“I think the best part of this conference is getting your head filled with all these ideas – maybe it’s just a spark from what a speaker mentioned or a conversation with other journalists – and try to spread that back out into the student journalism landscape,” said Jacob Dubé, vice-president of CUP.

The old NASH tradition enforces the idea that journalism across universities should not be a competition – rather, a collaboration. Dubé mentioned there is something quite powerful about seeing a community of aspiring journalists together in the same room, helping one another.

Indeed, the theme of this year’s edition, hosted by The Ubyssey – the University of British Columbia’s independent student newspaper – was empower.

Keynote speakers included Garth Mullins, host and executive producer of the Crackdown Podcast, who opened the conference Thursday night with a talk on how to properly cover the drug and overdose crisis in Canada. The second guest speaker was Dr. Candis Callison, an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, who addressed the practices and role of reporting on the climate crisis. The final speaker was Anishinaabe comedian Ryan McMahon, who used the stage to confront the colonial narrative in the media and share his view on key qualities and skills future journalists should hold.

NASH is also an opportunity to host the John H. McDonald Awards for Excellence in Student Journalism during the last night of the conference. While The Concordian left without any awards, Ireland Compton, editor-in-chief at The Link, won best Indigenous reporting for her piece: Protest Denounces Federal Decision to Appeal Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

“To be recognized for the work that I’ve been doing is a really great feeling,” said Compton. “I think that we all deal with imposter syndrome from time to time, I know I do, and an award like this is a reminder to myself that I’m on the right track.”

The Link also won the best cover/layout of the year for their gender and sexuality issue, published last March.

 

Photo by Alex Hutchins

Categories
Opinions

All news is subjective, and here’s why

A journalists’ role has always been to educate and inform the general public about events or issues that might affect their lives in an objective manner.

However, with the emergence of social media, many would think that their traditional role of gatekeeping would have disappeared. Right? Wrong.

Journalists will always be helping the public make sense of all the information that is out there, especially due to the exponential growth of the internet and the abundance of accessible information. However, I would argue that the news that we are currently consuming is highly filtered and the danger is that it is not as apparent.

The  concept of ‘manufactured consent’ is very important here. It is the idea of denying citizens access to other points of view by showing a partial side of a certain story — in other words, propaganda. Walter Lippmann in Journalism and Its Publics argues that citizens who are denied access to accurate facts are eventually going to create an environment where corruption, panic and disloyalty are present.

Often, when we hear or see the news on the radio or television, we come across these constructed stories produced by journalists who have specific points they want to bring across. According to Gasher et al, in Journalists as Content Producers, journalism as a profession operates within a specific environment with a set of specific ideals, storytelling conventions as well as varied audience expectations. As a result, journalists have to filter out information for various different reasons, whether it be time restrictions, what the producer has asked for or something that they did not think was important enough to include. Little subjective decisions like those are what contribute to the missing holes in news stories. In other words, many decisions go into producing news reports and a lot of filtering happens when it comes to producers deeming a story “newsworthy.” Every producer and journalist has their own set of skills and vision when it comes to their work, which means that a single story could be covered in various ways depending on their organization’s ideologies, values and needs.

However, according to Kovach and Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism, the gatekeeping role of journalists’ has shifted — I would instead argue that journalists today actually have more freedom to tell stories subjectively. Manipulation of the news that we consume is created throughout the journalistic process of finding the “truth” and accurately portraying that information to the consumer.

The whole journalistic process itself encourages the careful crafting of stories, no matter what kind of journalism we are talking about. And that is because it is a profession which requires journalists to operate within a specific environment, guided by certain expectations, ideals and conventions which need to be respected. All of these limitations brought upon journalists shape an even more restrictive story to the consumers.

It would therefore be nearly impossible to have news stories that “mirror” reality, because portraying reality would be including multiple sides of a story, which are experienced and viewed differently by everyone. A mirror, after all, shows us only what is placed in front of it, not more, not less. In a news story, the person holding the mirror would be the journalist. In this case, the journalist would have complete control over where to place the mirror and what exactly to include in the frame. It is safe to say that news is not gathered but rather curated, carefully selected and presented for public consumption.

Along with the rise of social media, an increasing chunk of the ‘audience’ now has the power of becoming content creators because of the abundance and ease of access of information available online. That, in turn, means that anyone can create and publish content online, claiming that it is ‘journalism.’ This promotes lower-quality news and the deskilling of journalists which renders them easy to replace. As a result, it makes the average journalist share the same skill set as anyone else.

In sum, subjectivity is always present in stories, no matter how blatant or subtle, because they are carefully crafted to “hook” readers and are heavily filtered by content producers in order to comply with their standards of “newsworthiness.”

But what measures can be taken in order to avoid bias and filtering of information in news stories? Unfortunately, as human beings, we are biased creatures by nature and journalistic practices and values are not expected to change anytime soon. However, allowing for a more inclusive environment in the newsroom with people of different opinions, coming from different religious and cultural backgrounds, could be a start. This would allow for a healthier flow of opinions, and the collective subjectivities would then help create some sort of large objective perspective from each news agency.

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

How can we save journalism?

Journalism is facing a crisis on many fronts.

The business model based on advertising revenues is no longer sustainable and journalism layoffs are at their highest level since the last recession. Some political leaders are in a campaign against the mainstream media and social media algorithms are taking on the role of gatekeepers, deciding what kind of content people are exposed to. Recently, the spread of fake news gained momentum, and public trust in media has been declining ever since. But aren’t journalists also responsible for the shrinking trust in traditional media?

The arrival of social media democratized the access to and production of information, making people connect to each other more easily. Instead of getting closer to communities from the beginning, journalists just watched, believing they would still be the only ones responsible for disseminating high-quality information. Which did not happen— people relied on YouTubers and bloggers to get their news. Now, to regain the audience’s trust, journalists should find ways to reconnect with them.

The bad news is that audiences seem not to care about news anymore. According to the latest Reuters Institute Digital News Report, almost a third of people (32 per cent) worldwide responded they “often or sometimes actively avoid the news,” including 41 per cent in the United States and 29 per cent in Canada. The report added that people run away from news because “it has a negative effect on their mood” (58 per cent) or because they feel “powerless to change events.”

At the same time, new technologies have brought enormous development and made it easier to produce and spread false stories. Although fake news is not a new phenomenon, they have gained more strength in a globalized world because of its speed, spread, and power.

Oxford research indicates that the production of fake news is associated with the origin of print media in 1439. At that time, there were already conspiracy theories about sea monsters and witches, or claims that sinners were responsible for natural disasters.

Today, however, fake news is spread in a much larger way. According to a Freedom of the Net report, the algorithms of Facebook, Google, and Twitter tend to promote viral or provocative articles that generate clicks, regardless of the veracity of their content. In effect, a BuzzFeed News analysis showed how false stories outperformed true stories from “traditional” media outlets on Facebook during the last US election.

Social media algorithms are taking the role as “gatekeepers,” a duty journalists once had pretty much to themselves—the only problem is that they can leave people to access false information. Despite some efforts, social media companies are still not fully engaged in combating the spread of disinformation on the internet—and I am not sure if they will anytime soon.

Besides, we see political efforts to weaken traditional media. Around the world, authoritarian leaders are appropriating the term “fake news” to characterize media coverage they do not like, which reduces the trust in these newspapers and media outlets. Inspired by Donald Trump, the president of my country, Brazil, the far-right conservative Jair Bolsonaro, often refers to the Brazilian mainstream media companies as “enemies,” moving people away from traditional newspapers and broadcast channels.

It is easy to point fingers at tech companies and political leaders and demand them to take responsibility for the rise of fake stories. But we cannot expect much from them. While they don’t take action to rebuild the trust in journalism, journalists should. Or, at least, it is the only option we have.

Rebuilding trust, however, requires a lot of effort and rethinking of journalistic practices.  Perhaps the idea of objectivity that fit well in traditional journalism for so many years doesn’t make sense in such a complex world. Some claim that journalism should stand for something: to keep the powerful in check, to pursue the truth, to provide context and perspective. “We take journalistic objectivity to be as natural and immutable as the stars, but it’s a relatively short-lived artifact of 20th-century America,” author Antonio García Martínez recently wrote in Wired. We live in an era where events are instantly captured from a dozen angles, allowing multiple interpretations. To think that only one media outlet will produce the “undeniable truth” is a bit naive. People want to read other people’s opinions and discuss them, that’s one reason social media has become so politicized.

It doesn’t mean that journalism is dead and journalists don’t have a role in this new public sphere—they just have to get closer to audiences. Being transparent in reporting, which ranked among the most important factors that influence trust in journalism, according to a Knight Foundation and Gallup poll, can be a starting point. Also, focused listening—a practice where newsrooms try to listen to their underserved or disengaged audiences— has a great potential to create connections.

Stories with personal approaches are also becoming very popular; one reason why podcasts are amassing audiences right now. Freelance journalist Jonah Weiner argues that voices in podcasts convey “warmth, empathy, personality and provide us with company—an antidote to the loneliness of the internet.”

With so many resources to create storytelling, journalism should be seen as a field full of opportunities, not a dying career. A study by The Discourse found that independent, digital media outlets are emerging as a sub-sector of the journalism industry, with the potential to deliver public service journalism in communities using audience-pay models. These outlets use practices of “slow,” engagement and investigative journalism and, as small outlets, they connect with their communities.

The solution to the existential crisis may not be found in technology, but in reconnecting with audiences. It is simpler than we imagine and it is up to us.

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

Preventing Fake News

Social media gives a platform for anyone to share their stories and opinions. All one needs is an internet connection—there is no criteria for professional journalistic skills or ethics. However, with this freedom comes opportunity to publish literally anything — including fake news.

Fake news involves the dissemination of information that is intended to mislead or manipulate an audience. It is also known as disinformation. Fake news can influence public opinion or perception, or instill fear. According to the 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer, 71 per cent of Canadians worry about fake news being used as a weapon. It is so easy to spread fake news—so citizens need to be better protected from it.

It recently occurred to me how easily information can be transformed into disinformation. On World Cleanup Day on Sept. 21, I was photographing the many Montrealers who took to the streets to pick up garbage. My camera lens caught one of the participants, François Raymond, putting Justin Trudeau’s campaign poster into a garbage bag. Raymond was smiling as if he looked happy about throwing it away. The first thought I had was that his smile was linked to his political views. I assumed he did not like Trudeau.

François Raymond, a participant, cleans the streets on World Cleanup Day near the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald in Montreal, Quebec. Photo by Reham Al Azem.

However, after I approached him to verify my perception, he said his smile had nothing to do with his political views, he was just happy with the amount of trash he had collected so far.

It got me thinking that if my picture had been shared on social media without context or with the wrong caption, it would misrepresent Raymond’s actions of simply cleaning his city. For example, if it was published on a social media page affiliated with the NDP or Conservatives, the picture could give the impression that Canadians are not supporting the Liberal Party, and affect voter perception. And with 40 per cent of Canadians using Facebook as a news source, according to the Reuters 2019 Digital News Report, many people could be subject to this disinformation.

This type of situation isn’t unheard of in the mainstream media. In 2016, during a campaign in South Carolina, a photo of Hillary Clinton went viral. It depicted her tumbling on steps with aides helping Clinton get her balance. The photo was used in the alt-right news site Breitbart published it as a clue of Clinton’s deteriorating health from a previous brain injury.  The Getty photographer Mark Makela was disappointed how his photo was misappropriated, in an interview with Wired.

With how easily fake news can be produced, social media companies cannot be depended upon to police themselves. Although Facebook Canada  with Agence France-Presse (AFP) launched its third-party fact-checking program, this will not do enough to prevent disinformation on its platform, according to a new transparency report released by the U.K.-based fact-checking charity organization Full Fact. For example. they state  government should be more involved in providing public information on subjects where harm can be done by disinformation.

I believe that using artificial intelligence to monitor social media on a daily basis will decrease fake news. Yet, Facebook’s fact-checking program is only a partial solution, since it’s impossible to combat the many fake news posts, often mixing opinions, conspiracies, and even facts, which can sometimes appear as real news.

More needs to be done, and I think it should start with legislation, as ultimately, the way people perceive fake news can completely change their views and potentially harm their lives. Law should be a method to protect users’ safety first and foremost,  and to protect journalism as a profession, as it’s one of the main institutions aimed at keeping democracy in place.

In Canada, laws around the dissemination of fake news haven’t been very effective. Section 181 says “ Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.” But in 1992, Canada’s Supreme Court deemed the offense unconstitutional as it the right to freedom of expression. And since the  section is not legally effective, there is still a gap when it comes to fighting fake news in the country.

With the new big technology shift occurring, it broadens the chance to have misleading news and lies. To hold that back, new laws need to frequently be enacted on a case-by-case basis in order to suppress the harmful mistruths. I think fines should be imposed on those who repeatedly publish fake information. Ethical hackers can be used to track down perpetrators who are causing significant harm on people’s lives or reputations. This will still keep the flow of democracy without limiting people’s right to free speech.

Due to a national survey conducted by Nanos Research for the organization Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), More than 70 per cent of Canadians agree or somewhat agree that government regulation is needed to prevent the proliferation of fake news, while more than 60 per cent of Canadians think that the federal government is not transparent or somewhat not transparent when it comes to the information that is available about what governments do.”

In the meantime, all we can do is to think critically about everything we see or read, and be skeptical, especially on social media.

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost
Photos by Reham Al-Azem

Categories
Opinions

Good journalism shouldn’t be free

Journalism is in a crisis — print and digital advertising revenues have collapsed.

According to the Local News Research Project, over 250 news outlets have closed their doors in the last decade in Canada, and many more have had to lay off journalists to stay afloat.

Now that advertisers are turning to social media, news organisations are being forced to change the way they do business, and many are turning to audience-paid models.

You have probably encountered some of these before: The Montreal Gazette gives you five free articles per month, and outlets like La Presse ask you to contribute a small amount monthly.

Paywalls have likely discouraged you from reading an article or watching a news video in the past. Why pay when you can get the same information for free elsewhere?

Well, I think it’s time to stop expecting quality journalism to magically appear on our newsfeeds.

As an audience, we need to differentiate between quality and commodity, and start paying journalists accordingly for the service they provide.

We can’t expect journalists to be the watchdogs of society, to attend city council meetings and political events, to investigate corruption and keep the powerful accountable, and then write engaging articles about it… for free.

Journalists are members of society, and although journalism may be their passion, it is still their profession: they need – and deserve – to get paid for the work they do. Especially since, as the National Association of Journalists in The Netherlands has reported, they have to do more work with fewer colleagues and less resources.

If we don’t pay for quality journalism, there will be no quality journalism.

According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, only seven per cent of Canadians paid for news in the past year, and most of these people only paid for one news subscription.

These are not promising numbers, and paywalls seem to work only for certain legacy news organizations like The New York Times.

However, we as an audience can make the decision to pay for journalism and help small, local news outlets thrive. And, as a 2018 study by digital news company The Discourse has shown, when we pay for news through memberships and subscriptions, journalists are incentivized to directly serve our communities and perform public service journalism – such as solutions and investigative journalism – instead of selling our attention to advertisers.

As U.S. media critic Jay Rosen said, a subscription business model is about “re-establishing a direct relationship between the users of news and the producers of news that is strong enough to withstand the telling of hard truths.” It allows the audience to pay directly for the news they value, and provides the news people need in addition to the news they want.

This kind of journalism is incredibly important in this day and age. We can’t rely on news outlets owned by millionaires or funded by foundations to give us in-depth, unbiased information. These organizations, by virtue of where they get their funding, cannot be fully independent. Even if these donors have no bad intentions, The Columbia Journalism Review has shown that journalists feel the influence of these donors, and that affects the journalism they do.

The only way to get quality journalism that does not influence us, but inform us, is to willingly pay for it. I believe paying for journalism should become as natural to us as paying our monthly phone bill.

To be clear: I am not arguing for paywalls. Business models based on making certain tiers of information only accessible to those who can afford it are a recipe for disaster.

I am only arguing that those of us who can afford to pay for news, should. If you can afford to pay for a Netflix or Spotify subscription, you can afford to pay $10 a month for The Montreal Gazette to provide you with the information you need to be an engaged citizen.

We have the power to change the way journalism is done: when we directly fund small, local news organisations, we give them the resources to produce in-depth stories from a range of perspectives. And when larger news outlets see that we want diverse, complex coverage of issues that affect us, they will follow suit.

Ultimately, in the words of Last Week Tonight host John Oliver, “sooner or later, we are either going to have to pay for journalism, or we are all going to pay for it.”

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

Algorithm editors and what they mean

What would journalism be without editors? Well, in my opinion, it would be pretty chaotic.

Editors are the backbone of journalism — take them out of the equation and you are setting loose a tsunami of fake news, badly written and poorly researched stories – to sum up, just total amateurism.

But, what do editors actually do?

According to Amelia Pisapia, journalist and former editorial director of Novel, editors are talented problem solvers who excel at putting information in context, assessing the accuracy of data and weeding out bias.

“They view issues from multiple angles, connect the dots and uncover human stories in complex systems,” writes Pisapia.

Pisapia adds that editors work within established ethical frameworks. She says that all editors have five values in common: accuracy, independence, impartiality, humanity and accountability.

However, in recent years editors have started to quite literally lose some of their humanity. With developments in technology and artificial intelligence, more and more media and news distributing platforms have started to use algorithms as editors instead of actual humans.

A good example is the algorithm behind the news feed on Facebook.Tobias Rose-Stockwell, a strategist, designer and journalist for Quartz wrote in his article, “[Facebook’s algorithm] shows you stories, tracks your responses, and filters out the ones that you are least likely to respond to. It is mapping your brain, seeking patterns of engagement.”

Sounds great doesn’t it? Having only quality news that you are interested in delivered right to your doorstep without having to move a muscle.

Well if it sounds too good to be true, it’s because it simply is. Algorithms are actually very far from being these perfect editors that we hope them to be. They have massive flaws and are actually very dangerous.

Don’t misunderstand me, algorithm editors have some good sides. They do surpass humans on some points — vis à vis their conduct as an editor for example.

In his article, “Can an Algorithm be an Editor?,” José Moreno, former multimedia director at Motorpress Lisboa explains that an algorithm has the silver lining of always acting the same way.

“Human editors always act differently on the basis of a common code,” Moreno says. “In a way, there is more accuracy and reliability in a “system” that always performs a function in the same way than in a “system” that always performs differently.”

So, yes algorithms have some upsides; Professor Pablo Boczkowski from Northwester University even called Facebook’s algorithm “the greatest editor in the history of humanity.”

But unfortunately, despite their virtues, any positive aspect that algorithms may present are always heavily outweighed by their negative counterparts.

The study , The Editor vs. the Algorithm: Targeting, Data and Externalities in Online News done by a collection of professors from different universities compared the different aspects of AI and human editors. The researchers discovered an alarming number of problems with algorithms editors, for example the algorithms tend to serve a less diverse mix of news to readers. They create a “bubble” effect as readers are presented with a narrower set of topics. An example the study presented was about readers who lived in German states where there was a high share of votes for extreme political parties. In the last election, those people were more likely to increase their consumption of political stories when their stories were selected by algorithms.

Another flaw with algorithms is their lack of social awareness; every calculation they make is based on an individual-level data. Algorithms don’t take into account “socially optimal reading behaviour,” according to the study.

“It doesn’t differentiate between factual information and things that merely look like facts,” said  Rose-Stockwell, referring to the Facebook example above. “It doesn’t identify content that is profoundly biased, or stories that are designed to propagate fear, mistrust, or outrage.”

The worst part in all of this, is that algorithms have even started to change the way some human editors think as well as the behavior of some news organizations. We have entered a traffic-at-all-costs mentality. News outlets are influenced by numbers, clicks and views now and no longer by journalistic values.

Despite all their flaws, regrettably, algorithm editors are still here and due to humans’ lust for technology and artificial intelligence, they are probably going to stay and even multiply.

But, why should algorithm editors be opposite to human editors, why should it be human vs machine?

The solution is easy: use a mix of both. The researchers from the study mentioned above concluded that “the optimal strategy for a news outlet seems to be to employ a combination of the algorithm and the human to maximize user engagement.”

In the digital age that we currently live in, machines will continue to take over more and more aspects of life. However, humans are more relevant than ever because these machines aren’t always optimal. So, in the end having a symbiosis between humans and machines is actually a comforting thought. It is the promise of a better tomorrow where machines will help humans and not supplant them.

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

I’m a journalist and an activist. Deal with it

In September, the Global Climate Strike took the world by storm with approximately 7.6 million people marching for climate action.

According to its organizers, this was the biggest climate mobilization in history. People sent a clear message to their governments: they expect climate action, and they expect it now. With approximately 500,000 people striking in Montreal, this was the largest strike in the city’s history, said Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante.

I was part of the march both as a journalist and an engaged citizen. I wonder if my objectivity could be discredited, since I personally share values with some climate activists and align myself with certain environmental movements.

Many journalists think it’s important to keep a distance from groups and movements, at the risk of losing credibility and thus the trust of readers. I’m aware that I have my own perspectives that impact the filter through which I view and describe events; and inevitably shades the, so to say, “truth.” However, I truly believe that being aware of these biases can only encourage me to be more objective and motivated to deliver the “truth.”

Objectivity is thought of as an absolute – journalists are either 100 per cent objective, or not at all. But in fact, journalists, like other human beings, are all subjective. They too, have their own interests, values, opinions and ideologies. I believe that, consciously or not, these values shape who they are, what they think and how they act as citizens as well as journalists. My personal interests are based on environmental and social issues and I believe in climate change and the need to act now. The planet is the number one subject I want to report on and I believe my interests and experiences in this field can add value to my journalism.

There is also this fantasy that journalists are independent and serve only the public. In theory, journalism is meant to deliver the truth and help the readers make their own opinion about the world, beyond the influence of any source of power, such as the government or private companies. I believe that in reality, even the most conscientious and cautious journalist can be influenced either by powerful sources or by various situations. For example, influences may come from the political views of the news organization the journalist works for.

Moreover, in my opinion, there are always two – if not more – sides to a story. The concept of “balance” can give you the impression that both sides should always be covered equally. But should they really? Journalists can sometimes give equal voice to people of unequal knowledge. For example, when covering stories linked to the constant debate on the existence of a climate urgency, journalists tend to grant equal importance to both scientists and global warming sceptics. Fearful of being seen as biased or discriminating certain opinions, they sometimes don’t help but confuse and mislead the public opinion.

Also, depending on deliberate choices concerning the materials used to depict an event or news, such as the composition of the pictures taken during a protest or the words used to describe the event, journalists can convey different sides of a story. They may do it unconsciously as they are sometimes just following news conventions, like publishing a picture showing the one violent demonstrator in a peaceful protest. It makes a more compelling photo than showing peaceful marchers, but I don’t think this depicts the actual event as it happened. I believe it is part of the journalists’ job to break barriers between people of different opinions and not only share what people do, but why they do it.

As part of my studies as well as my personal interests, I decided to join an environmental movement last July, to better understand activism and its link to journalism. Born in France, known for its revolutionary people, I had never joined any protest or any march before and had always thought protesters were very different from me. But the more I started attending protests, the more I realized how alike we were. This made me realize that there is a very powerful stereotype among the public opinion concerning activism. More and more, I could see that activism was often portrayed as violent, and activists as harmful troublemakers.

On the other hand, when I went to protests myself, I could see how peaceful they actually were and how cautious they had to be to fight against this misinterpretation commonly held in the public opinion that they’re the ones messing with the system. I believe journalists matter in this, since they have a certain influence on the public opinion.

Journalists decide what is news. Journalists are the ones to attach relative importance to news events. Readers interpret those events through the language that journalists choose to constitute their coverage. 

It’s obviously very difficult to leave my personal interests out of my work life, and I think that it’s a journalist’s responsibility to have integrity in their work. There will always be an inherent link between the authenticity of my work and my values, and it would be hypocritical to hide it. I strongly believe that if I acknowledge my personal interests, am conscious that I may have biased first reactions but am willing to try my best to deliver factual reports, I should not be considered any differently than other reporters, and I believe my knowledge of the ecological crisis can make me even better equipped to talk about such issues.

 

Photo by Britanny Clarke

Categories
Opinions

A marketing student’s strategy to a journalist’s success

The world of journalism is changing every day, making it more difficult for the traditional newspaper journalist to find a job. As a result, journalists should specialize in different areas, like marketing, in order to be more appealing to hiring managers.

According to IBISworld, the newspaper publishing industry in Canada is shrinking with a growth rate of minus 1.4 per cent by 2020, due to the rapid technological change that has altered media consumption. Traditional newspaper journalists are now being left without a home because big companies like Domino’s Pizza, Dove and Nike are now turning to social media influencers, online advertising and other digital platforms to share information to reach their desired target markets.

So how can we create more opportunities in this field? Well, maybe the solution begins with blending journalism with different areas of expertise.

This past spring, I graduated with a bachelors in marketing and a dream to work in advertising. While surfing through job posts, I noticed many advertising jobs were asking for journalism or communications graduates. I was amazed to find employers in the field I was planning to enter were looking for different skill-sets.

I soon realized that I needed to change my mindset. I had to blend my marketing knowledge with something else. With the increased demand in niche journalism, the multi-skilled journalist is high in demand. In Mark Stencel and Kim Perry’s newsroom study, where they randomly surveyed media leaders on their hiring tendencies, it was discovered that nontraditional skill-sets were more sought after — coding, digital design, social media distribution and data metrics were at the top of the list. Proving that journalists need to be more than journalists to successfully navigate through the new changes in this field.

Blending marketing and journalism is one way to stand out. Two of the more popular combinations of journalism and marketing are brand journalism and content marketing. Brand journalism is a hybrid of traditional journalism, marketing and public relations. In Andy Bull’s book titled Brand Journalism, he states that brand journalism incorporates the storytelling aspect of journalism, core elements from strategic public relations and marketing principles like visionary planning, research, a defined purpose and incisive messages. 

On Business2Community, a website where business professionals share and receive thoughts that can further their business and gain network opportunities, Sarah Skerik explained that brand journalism looks to build awareness, earn media exposure  and build brand credibility while setting context for directional brand messaging. So in other words, brand journalism is the telling of stories to create a comprehensive image of the brand.

For example, both McDonalds and Ronald McDonald House Charities benefit from positive stories written about the charity. In 2017, McDonald’s McHappy Day raised almost $3.5 million across Canada to help Ronald McDonald House of Charities. By promoting the charity, they also promoted their products.

In comparison, The Content Marketing Institute defines content marketing as a “marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent content to attract and retain a clearly defined audience.” Their goal is to capture interest, educate and introduce essential benefits of something short yet memorable, like words, catch phrases, and images that stimulates strong emotions that stay in the mind. According to eMarketer, in 2019, 84.5 per cent of companies in the US with more than 100 employees utilized digital content marketing strategies. 

Content marketing usually involves a campaign. Newsletters, daily emails and interactives come to mind. Therefore, brand journalism is a subset of content marketing because it can be looked at as a campaign. An example of successful content marketing would be when you are offered 10 per cent off your next purchase just for signing up for a newsletter. Another example is Coca-Cola’s “Share a Coke” campaign where you are able to customize your own bottle of Coke.

Whether you pick brand journalism or content marketing, I think marketing is one of the best skills one can add to their list of abilities as a journalist. Traditional journalism is changing. By adding marketing to your skillset, your employer would know you have the ability to write a great piece geared appropriately to the targeted market, making it easier to reach your goal. With journalism taking on more and more marketing characteristics everyday, this seems like the most logical choice.

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

Categories
Opinions

A lesbian journalist’s guide to objectivity

As a journalist whose existence is inherently political, presenting myself as politically neutral feels impossible.

I began questioning the idea that this was achievable during the first semester of my journalism major. During a lecture on social media guidelines, a professor argued that professional journalists were expected to be neutral online and that our profiles, public as well as private, should be used with precaution. In their defence, the stance of journalistic neutrality is a topic that is still being debated today. The same professor then put up their Twitter and Facebook profile which were both free from any personal news and opinion: a journalist with no identity.

I glanced to my right and then quickly to my left anticipating a reaction from my peers. I still don’t know whether I was the only one bothered by what we were being told, or if other students were just better at keeping a neutral expression. All I know is that in that moment I felt distressed because I knew that as a lesbian, my identity is anything but neutral.

That is not to say that my sexual orientation would ever interfere with my ability to report on stories which overlap with my sexual identity, but rather that no matter how objective my coverage may be, my identity is and always remains a political statement. Am I not to post photos of my girlfriend and I on Instagram? Would Tweeting about The L Word someday get me reprimanded?

The Canadian Press has come up with a set of rules for journalists to follow on social media platforms. “Journalists should not make reference in their profiles to any political affiliations, nor should they post material that could be construed as expressing a political opinion.” This prompts me to ask, how can we expect any member of a marginalized community, whether they’re Indigenous, black, trans, disabled or anyone in between, to be neutral when faced with a story that debates over their own humanity? The simple answer is that we can’t and we shouldn’t.

Trans man and freelance journalist, Lewis Wallace, made headlines in 2017 after he was fired for publishing a post on Medium in which he suggested journalists have to rethink objectivity. “The idea that I don’t have a right to exist is not an opinion,” stated Wallace. “It is a falsehood.” It’s true that journalists have a duty to serve the public, but this doesn’t have to come at the expense of their beliefs, nor should it force them to repress any part of their identity.

Like most journalists on Twitter, my bio consists of a list of my different titles: photo editor, student, journalist, etc.. But contrary to the majority of journalists, my bio also includes “proud lesbian.” A statement that directly breaks the rules meant to be followed by journalists across the country.

In my case, passing as straight is no obstacle – in fact, more often than not people assume that I am – this gives me the privilege to present myself however I see fit. I choose to present myself as a lesbian woman because that is who I am and no matter how hard I try, I cannot seperate myself from my identity, nor do I want to.

As former New York Times columnist Tom Wicker said: “We’re human beings first and journalists second; otherwise there’s something entirely wrong with us.”

 

Categories
Sports

Colour Commentary: The line between journalist and fan

We all fell in love with a team and sport for a reason.

From the moment I stepped into Concordia’s journalism program three years ago, I was told that I am to consider myself to be a journalist.

Every print journalist has their own style of writing. For myself, I try to put my voice, personality and identity in every piece I write. All of my friends and family know that my dream is to one day be a broadcaster for the Montreal Canadiens.

Since I was about seven years old, I lived, breathed, and bled Bleu, Blanc et Rouge. That love of the team turned into love of the sport, as I got older. It’s not very often that I get emotional, but I have shed many tears in the Bell Centre because of this team.

I’d be willing to bet that most sports journalists are in the same boat as me. They’ve been following a team for a long time, fell in love with that team and its sport, and wanted to make a living off of that passion.

So why do many journalists pretend to not be fans of a team they are covering when they grew up as one? Or, why do some criticize journalists for being fans of teams?

I can only speak for myself when I say this: I have two hats when it comes to sports. A professional one where I recognize that I have a job to do – just like the players – and the 13-year-old kid that has hockey in his heart.

I understand the criticism that people have that if someone is a fan of a team, they are likely to back the things they do and find justification for questionable decisions. But again, the professional hat has to take over in that case. It is possible to have journalistic integrity while holding on to a team that has meant so much to someone growing up (ahem, James Mirtle).

Yes, being a sports journalist, one must be professional, fair and balanced. Criticize when necessary, praise when necessary. But at the end of the day, we all fell in love with a team and sport for a reason.

Sports are fun. Getting behind a team is fun. As long as it does not get in the way of doing your job, I don’t see why I have to hide the part of my identity that got me in this field in the first place.

 

Exit mobile version