For most of us, being a journalist is not exactly a treat. We deal with constant layoffs, weak job prospects and a regular deluge of misinformation from conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, who was only recently banned from Facebook.
Freelancer Jacob Silverman pinned down other perennial industry problems in this essay from The New Republic last week. Silverman wrote that publications’ reliance on freelancers is coupled with a raw deal for those doing the work – low pay, no opportunity for mentorship and uncertainty that they’ll actually get paid.
Beyond that, some publications do things like label positions “full-time freelance” to avoid providing benefits. Others require potential freelancers to complete unpaid “exercises” that take hours to finish in return for the mere possibility of work.
Millennials seem to have inherited the worst iteration of this freelance economy, as Silverman wrote: “Every generation has its comeuppance. Ours lies in the vast field of disappointment that you land in after you run the gauntlet of privatized education, unpaid internships, and other markers of the prestige economy. There you find that writing ability or general intelligence mean nothing if you don’t have the right connections, or the ability to flatter those in authority, or a father who once held the same job.”
This reminded me of something I’ve been thinking about for a very long time – the seemingly endless number of stalwart gatekeepers who set the direction of the journalism industry and journalism itself. Quirks of our leadership dynamics and traditional journalism practices contribute to the spread of misinformation and propaganda.
How gatekeepers influence journalism and each other
Journalism gatekeepers are the same people who, broadly speaking, make hiring decisions that take applicants’ class into account, fail to consider applicants of color and avoid recruiting women and minorities for certain positions. They’re the same people who at times allowed widespread discrimination and harassment among their rank and file to go unchecked.
If that weren’t enough, gatekeepers also choose which stories receive coverage and which go unacknowledged. Built into the gears of the system, though, is an unending cycle of mainstream publications writing for themselves and each other. Instead of considering their audiences’ needs, publications often over-cover topics that other echo-chamber occupants unwittingly dub the most important news of the day, despite news orgs’ declining resources. You can see this when publications write about things that appear to be controversies on Twitter but carry less significance beyond that platform.
All of this is to say that large publications and their gatekeepers have great incentive and ability to choke out voices from beyond the hegemony before those voices had the chance to pipe up.
That is partially because national publications often repeat reporting efforts or opinions from each other’s work without offering alternatives that would go against the grain of whatever some ubiquitous, invisible truth arbiter thinks is the way to go. There’s nothing nefarious about this. It’s the outcome of a hive mentality that’s so widespread, it’s hard to define and harder to acknowledge. Something that’s everywhere is remarkably impossible to put your finger on. It’s the oxygen in your lungs, the constant electric hum you live off of but disregard.
Nonpartisan echo chambers repeat misinformation, too
Journalism is a small part of something big. The field of sociology and philosophers like Michel Foucault have something straight – the way we’re constantly building norms is a big part of how culture and society at large work. We’re forever overrun with and almost swimming in the dominant discourse, whatever it is, and it’s hard to verge from it.
However, journalists have a distinct role and responsibility to do just that, especially if the dominant discourse is bananas and/or not based in facts, the kind of facts that can be proven.
That is perhaps why I became frustrated when large journalism orgs, including Fox News, The Hill and New York Post, recently repeated claims from a far-right website without the slightest acknowledgment that those claims weren’t provable. I know they aren’t provable because I attempted to factcheck the subject at hand myself – the exact number of Somali casualties from the Battle of Mogadishu, better known as the “Black Hawk Down” incident after release of the book and film of the same title.
This is just one example of the way a position can gain credibility through repetition across different publications. It also was a reminder to me that the way journalists mirror each other can inadvertently spread propaganda.
What can newsrooms do to reduce the spread of misinformation?
Challenges in this information economy mean that nonpartisan journalists must be more critical than ever of words and where they come from. But I often see things like headlines that quote lies or otherwise false statements. Misinformation is sewn into journalism’s patchwork whenever propaganda is treated like a legitimate a source.
Things have gotten so bad that the situation calls for an industry-wide standard for handling misinformation and propaganda. If you or your publication don’t have firm policies in this area, here are a few ideas based on what we do at Big If True:
- Don’t use an inaccurate quote without acknowledging that it’s false immediately and clearly. Explain how and why it’s inaccurate, even if it seems repetitive or like something everyone should know already. The explanation will contain new information for many of your readers and provide important context.
- Never use an inaccurate quote in a headline. There simply isn’t room to acknowledge that it’s false and why it’s false, and not only is that confusing for readers, it misleads them, as well. Putting inaccurate quotes up top also leads those who don’t read beyond the headline to think the false quote is actually true.
- Consider avoiding the use of inaccurate quotes altogether. This is common practice among local and state reporters, but that’s not the case at the national level. Before using an inaccurate quote, think about the purpose the quote would serve in the story and why it may or may not be essential to report. Especially in cases where you would be the first to report the false statement, consider what it would add or take away from facts that have been reported about the matter at hand and if it’s worth the risk of spreading false information. Remember that just because someone says something doesn’t mean we have to report it. There is a stark difference between holding public figures accountable for what they say and empowering them to spread misinformation.
- Avoid reporting things you can’t verify yourself. Misinformation peddlers and conspiracy theorists rely on situations where the lies they’re spreading are impossible to prove or disprove. Their disciples quickly conclude that if something can’t be disproved, it’s true by default. We expedite this conclusion by copying and pasting dubious information into our reports.
- Don’t report misinformation as fact. This has sadly become a widespread practice. If something is untrue but you must use the information anyway for some reason, acknowledge immediately and clearly that it is not true. If you don’t know whether or not something is true, don’t use the information. If the situation demands you report the information anyway, acknowledge that you can’t confirm that it’s true.
- Think about your readers first. My most hated sentence from a journalist’s mouth begins with the words “everyone knows.” Don’t assume everyone knows anything. Never assume that your audience has cursory information on false statements that you use in your reporting, just like you wouldn’t assume readers know extensive background on a topic and every person named in a story. Never assume that they’ll understand why or how something is false. Never assume that something’s so far-fetched that it’s pointless to mention it’s bogus.
- And think about your readers second. The way we approach misinformation as an industry has led to widespread public confusion about topics as pressing as immigration and investigations into the Trump administration. Amplifying misinformation may seem too abstract to think about during daily practice, but unintentionally boosting propaganda has real-world consequences, like fueling hyper-partisanship, and at the very least, leaving readers misinformed.
Contact Mollie Bryant at 405-990-0988 or bryant@bigiftrue.org. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
An excerpt from this piece also will run in our newsletter, Hard Reset. Sign up for Hard Reset here.