by Brita Hunegs

What does the public need to know? What does the public have a right to know? Who is it incumbent upon to make sure that what the public needs and should know gets to them?

These are questions that have been churning in my head as we enter a second month of rapid change inflicted by the novel coronavirus. The media’s role as the “4th Estate”, as Thomas Carlyle first coined what he saw as the press’s job as protecting the balance of democracy, is overtly apparent.

Even the Founding Fathers appreciated the importance of a free press. James Madison said, “a popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy.” Self-governance and a truly representative democracy are facilitated by access to knowledge.

But not all dissemination of information is created equal. It is important to distinguish between the act of spreading information handed down from officials, versus finding the information and getting the word out to the public. There is a difference between a conveyor of information versus an excavator of it. This dichotomy can be summed up as the “art of communication” versus the “machinery of communication,” as 20th century American philosopher, John Dewey, framed it.

The more questions that we ask, the more accurately we can triangulate the truth. This is especially pertinent to our current moment in time, when we are all facing down the crisis of a global pandemic with all-consuming implications, and with protruding tentacles that touch nearly every aspect of one’s life. Journalists are currently engaged in probing at the pandemic from many angles, from the government’s response to it, to creating resource guides, to making the dense scientific data digestible. Indicative of the press’s role in the wellbeing of the public health, the state I am currently in, Minnesota, included newsrooms on its list of “essential workplaces” under its Stay at Home guidance. Public information that is reliable and complete goes hand in hand with public health.

Sun Tribune columnist, Lori Sturdevant, said during a forum on April 30 that this is a moment for journalism to be lifted up and be held in esteem, “We can’t allow detrimental rumors to circulate that could adversely affect people’s health,” Sturdevant said.

A time when the public is more dependent than usual on what officials are telling them requires even more diligent oversight by reporters.

Additionally, the commitment to liberalism that has been the backbone of American foreign policy since World War I has infused the common zeitgeist with the notion that American moral authority should be taken as fact. But a muscle can only grow when put under stress and it is the job of the press to question that moral authority so that a more robust democracy can emerge.

Yet the idea that the government is always working on behalf of the greater good is a potent force and is often wielded, especially by the military, to curb transparency. The embedded press system that emerged during the Iraq War was the culmination of a historically contentious relationship between the military and the press. Although the two entities both see their missions as protecting the public, their modes of carrying out that goal can be contradictory. While the press works towards transparency, the Department of Defense puts parameters in place that can, for better or for worse, deter this.

Whether or not you conceive of the COVID-19 crisis as a war, there is no doubt that the virus is an enemy to the functioning of society. Right now, the press needs to continue to dedicate itself to documenting how this “enemy” is handled.

-30-

By Carina Smith

It was early on in the COVID-19 pandemic when I received a call from my grandma warning me to stop taking ibuprofen because if I contracted the virus it could make the symptoms work. She emailed me a CNN article that cited a number of different sources about the possible harms of ibuprofen and the warnings from France’s health ministry.

The World Health Organization also issued a statement advising against the use of ibuprofen. Soon my social media feeds were full of people warning their loved ones to avoid using the over the counter medication, sharing articles that no one fully read and headlines that failed to mention one key fact: many doctors were saying that there is no proof ibuprofen will affect any symptoms of COVID-19.

We want to believe that science is perfect, or at least somewhere in the realm of perfection. But that is not the case. Science is trial and error, running test after test, creating hypotheses and throwing them away. Credible scientific studies are peer-reviewed and picked apart with a fine-tooth comb. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to COVID, scientists still have a long way to go before they can bring us concrete facts.

People want facts during the pandemic. But in a time when science is scrambling to find answers, it is important for journalists to spread facts instead of fear.

Right now, journalism is one of the only ways we are able to stay connected with what is going on in the world around us as we are all isolated. But journalism is also focused on reporting the facts and we cannot get lazy in our reporting. New studies are coming out every single day surrounding COVID-19 but that does not mean they are accepted as fact.

Our role as journalists is to do our homework. We owe it to our readers to provide them with all of the information when new studies are released and quoted by leaders. One study explored the possibilities of using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. The drug is typically used to treat malaria, lupus and arthritis. President Donald Trump tweeted about this study in late March, furthering the discussion around this new possible treatment.

The issue lies in the fact that this study was accepted only one day after it had been submitted. Typically, the process behind such a journal would take months or years to be written, peer-reviewed, accepted and then edited. This study was pushed through at an alarmingly fast rate and some of the outlets that reported on the study failed to mention this key fact.

The demand for studies around COVID-19 is putting the pressure on scientists worldwide, but that does not mean our job as journalists has to change. We are still responsible for fact-checking what we can and providing honest skepticism to the unknown. Now is not a time for journalists and scientists to be at odds with one another, but rather build bridges and connections to try and get the most accurate and up-to-date information out to the public.

By: Bella Michaels

Post-civil war America became less about political partisanship and more about serving citizens with news they needed to know to re-create journalism for a new nation.

Today, many journalists are focusing more on their personal agendas rather than reporting fair news to create a more civil society.

In a world that revolves around social media, public trust in journalists has decreased to 44 percent in the U.S., according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center.

There is a lack of balance in many news stories. It has become all about demographic targeting and agenda-setting.

Males covering males, women covering feminism, liberals setting anti-President Donald Trump agendas and conservatives counter-reporting the liberals. This kind of reporting is often done in an unfair way because it stems from an underlying bias.

It’s a detrimental cycle that is destroying the integrity of journalism.

Television news played a central role in transmitting information following the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks. Social responsibility during that time was crucial, since everyone in the nation was turning to the media for information to reduce uncertainty and negative emotions.

Now, it’s not just our nation– but the entire world– that is suffering through the COVID-19 pandemic and there hasn’t been a higher time of uncertainty.

Rather than dropping partisan ties during this serious time of plague, the bias has only escalated in a divided nation.

The New York Times science and health reporter Donald McNeil Jr. gave an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in which he blamed the country’s high number of cases on President Donald Trump. “Yes, it is the President’s fault,” said McNeil Jr. “It is not China’s fault.”

It has become a trend to blame everything on President Trump. The Chinese government initially concealed the outbreak and didn’t release key information as soon as it could have.

At the epicenter of the disease, the city of Wuhan threw a mass banquet for tens of thousands of people, and millions of people began traveling through for Lunar New Year celebrations, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Liberal media outlets are still focusing their stories on President Trump and finding ways to blame him, while conservative media outlets are focusing on favoring him.

It’s getting tiring, to be quite frank.

If I wasn’t an educated journalist with a bachelor’s degree and now almost a master’s, I wouldn’t have trusted the media like I do. Because I wouldn’t know any better.

Since most people aren’t taught which news mediums are objective, like the Associated Press or NPR, they assume that every journalist does their job like ones at Fox News or CNN.

I don’t ever find myself covering politics, but if I did, I would be fair in my reporting.

If I spoke to President Trump, I wouldn’t attack him passive-aggressively in my interview questions the way that some reporters do, or the way he responds to most reporters. I also wouldn’t butter him up.

I would focus on his quotes and relay the message he is giving.

While it is important to maintain your authority and not let someone bully you, it is just as important to not stoop down to that person’s level.

Smile and nod. The less you talk back, the more you are in control of yourself and the situation.

I’m not talking about talk-show hosts or television personalities– they can talk all they want because their job isn’t to be an ethical journalist. Their job is to entertain.

As long as there are journalists around that are focused on agenda-setting that favors their station’s beliefs, the public trust in journalism will continue to decrease.

This is unfortunate because most people do not realize the significance of journalism and its impact on the world.

It is central to how we live.

Without journalism, the world would be chaotic, especially these days when social media has given ordinary people a voice to produce their own content for the world to see. There would be no regulation.

How would we differentiate accurate news from fake news?

True journalists investigate, speak to multiple sources, and find documentation to support the news they provide in their story. Without personal opinion or benefit.

In a world where most people are not educated about how journalism functions, it is important that we, as journalists, do not prove the doubters right.

The public must be educated on the integrity and excellence of journalism and there must be a change in the way many are reporting, but it’s easier said than done.

-30-

By Hannah Mitchell

Earlier this month, a tweet stormed the internet when it claimed that four networks, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC, would no longer televise announcements from the White House. The tweet – which garnered more than 225,000 likes – stated the networks claim they are standing firm to protect the American public.

The twitter account belongs to Gerry Perlman, a sales manager for Office Depot, and has not provided any evidence to back the claim. However, it does open up the debate: Should media outlets censor the news?

In support of Perlman’s sentiment is Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, who sent a letter to the heads of CNN, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC asking them not to televise the president’s White House briefing which he calls a “platform for misinformation and disinformation.”

Major broadcast news networks, excluding Fox News, cut away from President Trump’s briefing in late March, after 20 minutes to network evening newscasts, the AP reports. Newsrooms across the country announced they would no longer give Trump unfiltered airtime. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow declared to viewers, “I would stop putting those briefings on live TV – not out of spite, but because it’s misinformation.”

Trump’s critics argue that airing briefings are a public safety issue. Using examples like the president’s comments about using disinfectants to treat COVID-19 and failing to clarify that it’s unsafe, was followed by multiple reports from health officials of patients drinking bleach to treat the virus.

The possibility that the president’s briefings would not be televised angered some viewers, who argue that the president’s speeches are alongside those of high-ranking health officials.

It leaves journalists debating the civic duty to broadcast the president’s remarks with the need to censor fabrications or supplement with fact-checking.

The solution is tricky. By limiting broadcasting the president’s messages, newsrooms border the highly-contested media issue of censorship. The news stations are making the decision for the American people on what information is appropriate for them to know.  It undermines the intelligence of the American people and their ability to decide for themselves what is news worth knowing. How can they decide what is factual if we never give them the opportunity?

A journalist’s responsibility is to report the news, even when they do not agree with the message. By filtering the news, they could do significant harm by disconnecting the American people to important information about what is going on in their country.

It also begs the speculation for what is next. When will the newsrooms decide that it is time to turn back cameras toward an elected official they don’t agree with? How can Americans make informed decisions on the ballot, if they no longer know what the candidates are about?

By turning the camera off when the president’s ramblings display his shortcomings, we only benefit him by making the public less informed about what the federal government is doing – or failing to do. Imagine what one could get away with if all their critics weren’t watching?

The value in his messages are not just the solutions he offers for the virus, but in knowing how he handles this. We wouldn’t know that Trump speculated the possibility of injecting disinfectants to treat COVID-19 if we couldn’t watch his briefings. We wouldn’t know that he was pushing to reopen American businesses if we didn’t hear him say it.

There is value in the opportunity to watch the president address the American people live, without the filter of White House officials. There is value in not having his messages paraphrased and restructured through the eloquent writings of journalists nationwide.

Whether or not the tweet has any factual baring, it is an idea that is debated among journalists and the public alike. The public deserves the opportunity to watch the president’s briefing and the opportunity to turn off their TV when they don’t like it.

-30

By Marin Scott

In a matter of months, the coronavirus outbreak has taken the world by storm. By devastating communities, taking hundreds of thousands of lives and effectively shutting down entire nations, the virus is a part of every moment of every day. And whatever holds the nation’s attention, holds journalists’ attention.

This is as it should be; now more than ever, strong journalism is needed for reporting the facts, clarifying complex explanations and providing people with the proper information that will keep them safe. As a global community we are facing a rapid moving, ever-changing threat.

But in the panic that is COVID-19, we have once again overlooked our second threat—one that moves much slower but is just as dangerous, if not more: climate change.

A controversial, divisive and urgent topic to cover, climate change has never been a top priority for American news organizations. Guardian journalists Kyle Pope and Mark Hertsgaard put it plainly when they said, “Judging by the climate coverage to date, most of the US news media still don’t grasp the seriousness of this issue. There is a runaway train racing toward us, and its name is climate change.”

Which is true. In a study conducted by Media Matters for America, the group found that only 0.7% of all “corporate broadcast nightly and Sunday morning shows” programming was related to climate change, and this is after the same news networks increased their climate coverage by 68% between 2018 and 2019.

In his article for Columbia Journalism Review, Hertsgaard only mentioned the Washington Post and New York Times as two newsrooms with strong reporting on climate change in print and online media. While he mentioned the spike in climate coverage across all news sources in recent years, due in large part to international protests, it does not change the fact that newsrooms have not given the climate crisis nearly as much attention as other issues.

“The press has never treated the climate story with anywhere near this level of attention or urgency,” Hertsgaard wrote in his article when discussing the coverage of climate change to that of COVID-19.

Though it may appear that climate reporters like Hertsgaard and Pope are complaining about the immense amount of reporting on COVID-19, this is not the case. Their argument is that something as deadly and disastrous as global warming should be reported on with the same fervor as its sinister equal, the coronavirus.

So why is it that the current climate crisis is practically neglected by newsrooms while the coronavirus takes center stage?

According to Hertsgaard and Pope, climate change is simply not that interesting, especially in comparison to a global pandemic. News stations and papers are having a hard time justifying the resources, time and money that it takes to cover climate issues when few care to read, watch or listen to it.

With the constant changes in policy in response to COVID-19, a rising infection and death rate and the dissemination of rumors about the virus, newsrooms are getting all hands on deck in an effort to deliver solid, factual reporting. Many climate journalists who once dedicated their entire careers to reporting on and informing the public about climate change are now finding themselves waist-deep in coronavirus news.

News organizations have decided there is simply no space for climate coverage in today’s news cycle, a choice that puts the world in danger.

“The contrast between the media’s coverage of the coronavirus and the climate crisis illuminates another core truth about the media,” Hertsgaard wrote. “Collectively, the media exercises perhaps the greatest power there is in politics: the power to define reality, to say what is—and what is not—important at any given time.”

This power will decide whether or not our politicians, our government and our audience care about climate change. If we choose to report on the devastating effects of the coronavirus without covering the effects of global warming, then we are choosing an uncertain future. Now more than ever it’s our responsibility as journalists to save the world.

How newsletters can offer enticing alternatives to traditional news consumption

By: Erica Carbajal

Before even opening your eyes for the day, your smart phone is already sparkling with news notifications. Well, maybe that’s just because I’m a journalism student, but you get the point. News never stops. From the time I wake up until it’s time for bed again, my day is constantly interrupted with intermittent news consumption. Watch a quick story here, read an article there, get back to work and repeat. It’s easy to get lost in the sea of headlines, and in the midst of a pandemic it’s even more overwhelming.

That’s why I wasn’t surprised by a Pew Research survey that found 66% of Americans, about two-thirds, feel overloaded with the amount of news there is.

Perhaps that explains why The New York Times has 14 million subscribers across 55 of its newsletters. Newsletters have become increasingly popular as they offer a concise, more personalized version of presenting the latest headlines. At a time when mental health experts are recommending that people reduce their news consumption to ease stress, newsletters might be their one stop shop throughout the day.

I’ll admit it. When there are days I’m overloaded with work or just feeling burnt out from all of the news because yes, even journalists can feel weighed down by the information overload, I’ll just read my newsletter roundups. These include CNN’s 5 Things morning edition, WBEZ’s The Rundown for some local round ups and the Quartz Daily Brief for some global economic updates.

Of course, I don’t get as much depth and breadth as when I normally sit down and browse through the articles of each newspaper that I normally read, but I at least step away feeling like I know the basics of the day’s top stories. It does the job so that I don’t fall behind completely, and when I come back the next day feeling refreshed and ready for my normal news intake process, I don’t feel lost.

Specialized newsletters are particularly convenient during rare events. During the impeachment proceedings last year, I looked forward to seeing the Impeachment Briefing newsletter from The New York Times in my inbox each morning. It caught me up to speed on who would be testifying that day and what was at stake. Now with COVID-19, top tier publications across the country have started newsletters focused on virus updates.

I think newsrooms recognize that many people, especially in midst of a crisis, do try to tune out when they can, so creating specialized newsletters is a responsible way for them to cater to this anxiety filled audience who chooses to limit their news consumption. It’s an opportunity for newsrooms to grow and reach an even larger audience.

Sure, the goal for newsrooms is that readers are clicking on some of the links within newsletters to read the full stories, but even if they’re not, that audience is still getting the gist of what’s happening. It gives them a personalized way to browse through news on their own time and read deeper where they choose to.

To an extent, newsletter emails also provide personalized content that help break up some of the hard news content. Yes, it’s important to be updated if you’re relying on newsletters to subscribe to a variety so that you’re getting an array of local, national and world news, but also just something fun that speaks to your interests. Since I’ve been cooking more than I ever imagined, I’ve come close to running out of ideas. My taste buds are sick of my usual meals. So, I recently signed up for the bon appétit recipes newsletter, and every morning I find new inspiration.

Community engagement is arguably more critical now than ever, and newsletters provide yet another away for community members to connect with journalists. They often include messages at the end encouraging readers to contact them, so it’s another opportunity for a community to ask for the news they need because as much as we try to understand the needs of our audience, there are always things we miss.

Next time you check your email, don’t scroll past that newsletter you forgot you signed up for months ago. Read it. It might encourage you to sign up for more.

-30-