by Lilly Keller

One of the first lessons I learned as a student journalist was only to report what I could unequivocally verify. At the time, I found it funny that my professor dedicated an entire lesson to such an intuitive concept. Wasn’t the very essence of journalism to make the truth accessible to the public?

Before winter break, the idea of resorting to deception to sell a story had never crossed my mind. Then I began reading “And the Band Played On” by American journalist Randy Shilts.

Published by St. Martin’s Press in 1987, the over 600-page book is one of the first comprehensive histories of the AIDS epidemic. Built on Shilts’s relentless reporting at The Advocate and San Francisco Chronicle, the book delves into the people and politics that played a crucial role in bringing the AIDS virus under control.

Although dense at times with complex medical terms and harrowing images of young men whittled away by disease and ignored by their government, I couldn’t put the book down. However, the narrative of Canadian flight attendant Gaétan Dugas haunted me.

Characterized by Shilts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as “patient zero,” Dugas is depicted as deliberately spreading AIDS and eventually labeled as “the person who brought AIDS to North America.” Without a second thought, I, like readers in 1987, bought into the narrative and felt contempt toward Dugas. Why would Shilts make up something so horrific?

Shortly after the book’s publication, Dugas, who died in 1984, became synonymous with front-page headlines. “The Appalling Saga of Patient Zero” read TIMES magazine, “The Man Who Gave Us AIDS” announced The New York Post and “The Columbus of AIDS” displayed The National Review. However, Shilts’s portrayal of Dugas is knowingly distorted. From omitting anecdotes of Dugas refusing sex due to his AIDS status and telling friends, whom Shilts interviewed for the book that he would keep Dugas anonymous, Shilts constructed a version of Dugas that diverged from reality, presenting a characterization so sensational that it would capture the attention of the general public.

Trust from sources is essential for accurate news, especially when portraying marginalized communities. By betraying sources’ trust without warning, Shilts perpetuates a cycle of apathy and insensitivity—an attitude that prevented the media from taking the epidemic seriously.

Furthermore, the CDC study that Shilts relied on initially identified Dugas as patient O, indicating his origin as outside California rather than as the virus’s epicenter in North America. However, a typo turned O into zero, contributing to the confusion in the paper trail. Still, without fact-checking or contacting the study’s lead investigator, Bill Darrow, Shilts reported on the information at face value, contributing to the confusion and distortion of the truth.

Years after Shilts’s death in 1994, the book’s editor, Michael Denneny, would confess to consciously vilifying Dugas in the book and its publicity campaign to stimulate sales.

“It’s the worst kind of yellow journalism. I admit I got my hands dirty,” Denney said in an interview with Xtra magazine. “Randy was horrified. He didn’t want to do it but I pointed out to him that if we didn’t no one would read the book and we’d sell 5,000 copies that would end up collecting dust on the shelves.”

As journalists, we must acknowledge our position of power and consider it critically. Shilts’s reporting for “And The Band Played On” rendered visible an illness and the hundreds of thousands of lives it took yet perpetuated a false narrative. When readers cannot trust journalists and their work unequivocally, society risks embracing misinformation, rendering our journalistic purpose useless.

In the 36 years since “And The Band Played On” was published, there has been no correction or official acknowledgment of Shilts’s and St. Martin’s Press falsehoods beyond Denneny’s admission. Gaétan Dugas’s exoneration through genetic testing doesn’t negate the harm depicted in his narrative, serving as a stark reminder of the damage caused when journalists prioritize acclaim over truth.

-30-

By Adit Jaganathan

 There is a certain power in crafting stories that keep readers engaged while giving them valuable information. Imagine having the ability to inform the public about events that could potentially change the course of their lives. That’s what journalists do every day.

The world we are living in is characterized by urgency and impatience. Everyone wants everything at the touch of a button, and that includes information. The role of journalism has never been more crucial. As we navigate the intricate web of news and narratives, the need for more students to pursue journalism is urgent. An influx of budding journalists is necessary for a society that seeks to stay informed, engaged, and empowered. So, hopefully, this blog will at least make some of you consider pursuing a career in journalism.

Journalists Are Warriors

At its core, journalism is the pursuit of truth. This world is rife with the spread of misinformation, and journalists are the defenders of the truth. We are trained in the art of ethical and factual storytelling, and we are armed with the power of words. We shield our people and the democracy from manipulation by acting as watchdogs for those in power. We hold them accountable for their actions, with our impartial and unbiased reporting. We have to be cutthroat in our pursuit of the truth, sifting through all the guff and delivering compelling stories, no matter what kind of backlash we may suffer.

Journalists Can Bring Change

Journalism has the transformative power to change a society. Journalists bring attention to a society’s problems. Our stories of injustice, inequality, and other issues can spark conversations that lead to change. We tell stories about the human experience, which resonate with readers who suffer in the same way. This helps bring people together to stand against the injustices they have faced.

Journalists Are Globetrotters

Journalism can take you around the world. We pursue stories that can take us to every corner of the globe. We meet people from various backgrounds and nationalities and tell their stories. We look for stories that aren’t being told by people who aren’t being heard.

Journalists Are Multifaceted, Adaptable, and Creative

Journalism students are equipped with a host of different skills that help them do their job. We learn how to create different forms of media that help us tell our stories. Whether its text, photos, videos, or audio, studying journalism gives you the opportunity to learn new skills and hone your craft. It also allows you to report about whatever you want to. There’s an abundance of stories to be told in every industry, and it’s a journalist’s job to find them and inform the public in creative, accurate, and compelling ways.

The reason more students should pursue journalism is because of the industry’s relevance and transformative power. Journalists aren’t merely talking heads; we’re architects of public discourse and opinion. As guardians of democracy, champions of truth, and storytellers of the human experience, we navigate and adapt to the complexities of the digital age with integrity. We pursue stories that matter, commit to accuracy, and serve as catalysts for change.

By: Hailey Bosek

The largest newspaper chain in the U.S with over 200 publications under the company’s name, Gannett, recently posted journalism’s hottest new job position. The esteemed role is titled “Taylor Swift Reporter” and “Beyonce Reporter.”

“Seeing both the facts and the fury, the Taylor Swift reporter will identify why the pop star’s influence only expands, what her fanbase stands for in pop culture, and the effect she has across the music and business worlds,” the company wrote in its job description. Similarly, the newspaper is looking for someone to do the same for Beyonce.

That isn’t the only thing that Gannett has been up to as of late. Gannett has faced scrutiny due to its mass layoffs in recent years. According to NPR, Gannett’s staff of 25,000 has dwindled down to just over 11,000 since 2019. Mass layoffs came in waves, with the most recent one laying off 6% of its U.S. media division in December 2022.

Gannett Media president Maribel Perez Wadsworth told staff in an email that the company would make “necessary but painful reductions to staffing” and eliminate certain open positions. These supposedly “necessary” layoffs are taking people with decades of experience in their career away from their expertise while creating pockets of news deserts around the country. Susan DeCarava, president of the NewsGuild, has been vocal about Gannett’s control over the industry.

“Gannett CEO Mike Reed didn’t have a word to say to the scores of journalists whose livelihoods he’s destroyed, nor to the communities who have lost their primary news source thanks to his mismanagement,” DeCarava said in a statement.

So why Taylor Swift? Why Beyonce? Kristin Roberts, Gannett’s chief content officer told the Wall Street Journal that the revenue is what will save local journalism.

It is not. To advertise this position is laughing at the faces of the local journalists’ jobs that were slashed in the name of profits. These papers are left to a handful of staff that are stretched thin or are shut down entirely. The future of journalism looks bleak when the local city hall meetings will go uncovered, but what restaurant Taylor Swift recently visited has its own 500-word breaking story for USA Today. Gannett laid off about 600 reporters last year and has done nothing to salvage local papers. While their relevance is fading, their mission is more important than ever. The local news is falling through the cracks because it doesn’t make as much money or gain as many readers as documenting what new glittered corset Beyonce wore at the third leg of her tour. Does this make the local town hall sessions any less important?

I love Taylor Swift. I remember where I was when I saw the job listing on Twitter and immediately thought about how I could cover this beat. Analyzing cultural phenomenon’s and covering them is important. I believe that pop culture news can be fun to cover, create and read. However, to dedicate an entire reporter for both Beyonce and Swift as if the company doesn’t regularly lay off journalists with decades of experience is a slap in the face of why journalism matters in the first place. We need to continue as a community to invest in the local publications. We need to go back to our roots and connect with the people we cover. And most importantly, we need to call out Media Conglomerates at any opportunity we can.

-30-

BY NADIA CAROLINA HERNANDEZ

When USA Today announced it was seeking a reporter to cover the ubiquitous Taylor Swift, I couldn’t be more excited. I’m a huge fan and would love to see how her impact affects our culture and economy.

As much as Swift and other celebrities like Beyoncé gained traction over the summer with their tours, USA Today’s parent company Gannet was questioned about where they’re putting their reporters.

We’re at a critical moment in journalism when local newsrooms are disappearing across the nation, according to PEN America in 2020.

Local news retains the pulse of a community by covering the courts, mayor and meetings that directly impact everyday people . Beyond the investigations, seeing culture represented in the news can spark pride among neighbors.

There are greater purposes to local news beyond what we can anticipate. If not to keep people up-to-date, local news documents the history of a community. We can easily trace the development of individual families through archives of newspapers and digital archives for years to come.

If not focusing on the need-to-know news, these positions are the news industry’s adjustments to the digital age by focusing on social trends.

We won’t know until we see what they deliver. Beats covering entertainment and people in power still include strong journalism ethics and practices. Balanced journalism involves judgment and skill. It’s not enough to update social media every hour with whereabouts and rumors.

We also know from journalistic ethics that being a fan or a hater of any celebrity presents serious conflicts of interest when reporting on them. These positions should follow the same guidelines that are expected of presidential reporters .

Sun-Times columnist Rummana Hussain reflected on how the new celebrity-focused positions are motivated by profit. The news industry is constantly trying to meet people, especially Gen Z, where they are with attention-grabbing headlines about the latest trend.

The meeting place is on social media. We’re constantly being told that people are getting their news through X, Instagram and TikTok. Swift and Beyoncé also reign supreme on these platforms, where fans can quickly spread information about updates about their tours and upcoming projects.

Local news can thrive in the age of digital media. Who knows better than community reporters to share the best local businesses, quick city hall updates and weather forecasts? As I enter the industry soon, I know that delivering news digitally is a valuable skill. Journalists are more than capable of keeping local news alive.

Gannett  received over 1,000 applications for the celebrity beats. There are not as many rushing to cover a small town’s court system, but we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the significance of local news in the digital age. I’m sure someone out there will live their ‘wildest dreams’ by reporting on two of the most influential artists of the generation.

###

BY NADIA CAROLINA HERNANDEZ

When USA Today announced it was seeking a reporter to cover the ubiquitous  Taylor Swift, I couldn’t be more excited. I’m a huge fan and would love to see how her impact affects our culture and economy.

As much as Swift and other celebrities like Beyoncé gained traction over the summer with their tours, USA Today’s parent company Gannet was questioned about where they’re putting their reporters.

We’re at a critical moment in journalism when local newsrooms are disappearing across the nation, according to PEN America in 2020.

Local news retains the pulse of a community by covering the courts, mayor and meetings that directly impact everyday people . Beyond the investigations, seeing culture represented in the news can spark pride among neighbors.

There are greater purposes to local news beyond what we can anticipate. If not to keep people up-to-date, local news documents the history of a community. We can easily trace the development of individual families through archives of newspapers and digital archives for years to come.

If not focusing on the need-to-know news, these positions are the news industry’s adjustments to the digital age by focusing on social trends.

We won’t know until we see what they deliver. Beats covering entertainment and people in power still include strong journalism ethics and practices. Balanced journalism involves judgment and skill. It’s not enough to update social media every hour with whereabouts and rumors.

We also know from journalistic ethics that being a fan or a hater of any celebrity presents serious conflicts of interest when reporting on them. These positions should follow the same guidelines that are expected of presidential reporters .

Sun-Times columnist Rummana Hussain reflected on how the new celebrity-focused positions are motivated by profit. The news industry is constantly trying to meet people, especially Gen Z, where they are with attention-grabbing headlines about the latest trend.

The meeting place is on social media. We’re constantly being told that people are getting their news through X, Instagram and TikTok. Swift and Beyoncé also reign supreme on these platforms, where fans can quickly spread information about updates about their tours and upcoming projects.

Local news can thrive in the age of digital media. Who knows better than community reporters to share the best local businesses, quick city hall updates and weather forecasts? As I enter the industry soon, I know that delivering news digitally is a valuable skill. Journalists are more than capable of keeping local news alive.

Gannett  received over 1,000 applications for the celebrity beats. There are not as many rushing to cover a small town’s court system, but we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the significance of local news in the digital age. I’m sure someone out there will live their ‘wildest dreams’ by reporting on two of the most influential artists of the generation.

###

By Jackie Cardenas

As journalists, we are frequently told to remain objective. To draw a thick line between your opinions and the cold facts. To never let your own desires seep into the story you’re telling. And if you have strong beliefs to share, you can head your merry way to the opinions section of the paper.

It’s a thin rope I’ve walked as a journalist and the more I develop my own ethical compass, the more I believe objectivity bars us from igniting systemic change that would truly benefit us all.

The knowledge that journalists acquire from rigorous reporting places us in a unique position to not only understand the complexity of societal issues, but to pose viable solutions that dare to reimagine the world as it stands with the interest of people at heart.

When we take a stance, we can propose solutions that put asylum-seekers on the path to citizenship instead of them sleeping on police station floors. We can propose solutions that restore a woman’s right to be free, to have autonomy over her own body. We can propose solutions that trek us closer to ending the hyper policing of Black and Brown bodies, a construct that is deeply rooted in slavery.

It doesn’t mean that every story we write will lead to monumental change, but we should be uplifting the voices of those who are on the front lines fighting for these causes, in hopes that we can all edge closer to a liberated world.

Just as we would consider cancer solutions from a doctor with years of expertise in the field, why shouldn’t we consider the solutions a journalist suggests who has covered the abuse of workers’ rights? The power of the press is invaluable and should be used to propel reform.

Moreover, objectivity is the distance from a story only afforded to White journalists.

As Washington Post reporters Brie Thompson-Bristol and Kathy Roberts Forde put it, “The White press in America has a history of playing fast and loose with its ethics and disguising racism behind the veil of objectivity.”

When George Floyd was brutally killed in 2020, many journalists of color could not distance themselves from the story because it was far too personal, because it is our communities who are too frequently brutalized. We needed to take a stance.

As anti-apartheid and human rights activist Desmond Tutu once said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

The Black Lives Matter Movement grew, leading Black reporters to speak out against traditional journalistic standards because they felt it restrained who could report on the protests and whose views were truly considered “neutral.”

In newsrooms that remain 76% White, 8% Hispanic, 6% Black and only 3% Asian according to Pew Research Center, people questioned, for whom were these journalistic standards originally intended to serve?

Everybody has a bias but if we acknowledge them and we are transparent with our readers about them, it doesn’t have to diminish our fairness. I argue it makes us even more credible when we own up to where we stand.

There are harmful sides to issues and if we don’t let the public clearly know that, then we lose touch of our moral responsibility.

It doesn’t mean we let go of the practice of telling all sides to a story, it means we are taking the knowledge we acquire and proposing solutions.

-30-

by Samantha Moilanen

Growing up, my exposure to television and electronics was limited. Like most parents, mine feared my sister and I would grow up reliant on technology for our entertainment. Nevertheless, whenever I had the opportunity, I would “discreetly” watch my parents’ TV shows, which typically included programs such as Cold Case, Criminal Minds and Law and Order.

My fascination with crime shows from a young age sparked my interest in investigative journalism. As I began my journalistic career, I found myself drawn to reporting on crimes or any societal injustices.

But one question continually haunts me: How do we fulfill our duty to report the truth while minimizing harm to victims, particularly in cases of traumatic events like mass shootings?

Since Columbine, there have been 386 school shootings in the U.S., according to data from the Washington Post updated in June.

The horrifying reality of school shootings hit close to home in November 2021 with the Oxford High School shooting in Michigan and, again, in February when Michigan State University became a target for an active shooter.

As a reporter, when covering crimes like these we quickly rush to the scene, not thinking about our safety or well-being, but only that we have to break the news of this horrific tragedy because the public deserves to know what is happening. It’s our job after all.

Yet, as journalists we also have to be mindful of how we cover these events. Behind the headlines and troubling statistics are people who have experienced unimaginable pain and suffering. We can’t forget why we do what we do. Yes, we have to break the news. But taking an extra minute to truly analyze what we’re reporting before we hit send can make a drastic difference.

Ashley Yuckenberg, an assistant professor at George Mason University wrote her dissertation on the ethical quandaries of crisis coverage as a journalist. Her research focused specifically on school shootings and analyzed how missteps in local coverage distorted the national conversation about these events.

In the well-known 1999 Columbine shooting, reporters interviewed traumatized students immediately after surviving arguably the worst experience of their lives.

Was this ethical? Of course, journalists should always interview the people directly impacted, but should they have waited?

Yuckenberg found false rumors were then reported as fact in an effort to quickly break the news which resulted in forming the stereotype of the disaffected, gun-obsessed American school shooter that lives on in our imagination today. Yuckenberg uncovered another alarming aspect that was added to the narrative shaped by the media: the suggestion that goth culture played a motivating role in school shootings.

In 2017, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a set of guidelines for journalists to follow when reporting on mass shootings. Some general principles included avoiding angles or language that could potentially glamorize the perpetrator’s actions, thus influencing copycat behavior, avoiding stories that could retraumatize survivors, and avoiding language that could stigmatize people living with mental illness.

Yuckenberg used her research to come up with five ethical issues for journalists to consider when covering mass shootings. First, be mindful of relying on unverified information from witnesses who still may be in shock because it can result in misinformation. Second, avoid including details that may sensationalize the crime and retraumatize victims. Only include information that benefits society as a whole. Third, be mindful of how your coverage could influence copycat crimes. Fourth, always offer information from both sides and contextualize all statements regarding issues like mental health. Finally, be mindful of missing information as a crisis is unfolding. Sharing the full story is important but also be aware of how the information is affecting survivors.

I never want to be the journalist who chases the story to the point that they forget why they are reporting it in the first place. I think it’s easy to get caught up in the fast-pace of the 24-hour news cycle and making a deadline can sometimes seem like the top priority. But I also want to challenge myself to practice mindfulness when reporting on crimes of all nature, and to remember that the story isn’t just a story, but these are people too.

By: Alexandra Murphy

As a journalist, you will often encounter stories where you become overly attached to a source in some way, shape, or form. While it is important to be an empathetic journalist, it is also drilled into fellow reporters, including myself, that you must always maintain a certain level of objectivity. So, how close is too close for comfort when having a relationship with a source and where do we draw the line?

Journalists can spend weeks, months, and in some cases even years getting to know their sources carefully and personally. Learning personal information about and source’s family life, finding out about a traumatic incident the source has had, you name it. When growing this close to knowing an individual’s personal life, it can be difficult to withhold from exchanging a personal back and forth to empathize with the person being interviewed.

Some journalists may even find themselves in the difficult position of wanting to relate to the source so that the conversation does not feel awkward or one sided. This is why it is imperative as a journalist to refer back to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and to always be upfront with your newsroom and your reader when disclosing source relationships.

My belief is that to remain objective there is an invisible line that should be drawn when reaching out for the initial interview, during the interview, and even after the story is published if the piece requires a follow up with the source. A large part of drawing this line is being completely transparent with the public about your relationship to a source. Then, later down the line if you are able to get the scoop on a source, there is no question of your intentions on how you obtained the information.

The SPJ Code of Ethics states, “a journalist’s job is to seek the truth and report it.”

One example of a reporter who did not follow this important guideline was Nina Totenburg, a well-known, reputable correspondent for NPR, who had a controversial friendship with source Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Supreme Court reporter released a book in 2022 titled, “Dinners with Ruth”, which sparked a debate about conflict of interest with source relationships and if this would give off the impression that journalists are no longer loyal to the public.

In my opinion, I believe that Totenburg being friendly and having a large amount of respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not the issue at hand because as a journalist, it is important to build relationships with your sources.  However, I think she crossed the fine line between building a relationship and having a close friendship where this line became blurred and the implications impacted her reputation as an ethical journalist. After all, in her book she stated that she had known about Ruth Bader Ginsburg falling ill prior to her death on Sept. 18, 2020.

This is an ethical issue I struggle with to this day because as an empathetic individual, it becomes challenging to maintain objectivity and professionalism when reporting on an emotional topic. Going into the journalism profession, I accepted this challenge with a full understanding of how difficult it was going to be.

One of the most touching stories I have ever had the opportunity to report on was covering the busing of migrants from Texas to Chicago. I couldn’t help but to tear up in the moments talking with those directly affected because, how could I just sit there, and stare blank faced at a situation that is so horrifying and has had an impact on so many  people.

Sometimes, it can become easy to forget that journalists are human too and are allowed to feel emotions for their sources. Having difficult emotions, being empathetic, or simply checking in with a source is not wrong.  Withholding information from the public when wanting to protect a source is when having too close a relationship with a source becomes unethical.

-30-

By Alyssa Gomez

Through the last four years of pursuing a degree in journalism, I have been taught many things, the most prominent being: tell both sides of the story. Though this theory may seem like a simple instruction it is something young journalists like me have to work at.

I remember being in a heated crowd in downtown Chicago when abortion rights were being taken away from women in America. It was the first story I felt as if I was covering something important; a hard-hitting breaking news story. As excited as I was, I can now look back and recognize my shortcomings that day. Because when you are face to face with the opposing side, chanting rude, nasty, and even threatening things, it is difficult to approach them with confidence and ask for their point of view…and I didn’t.

I was in that situation not long ago, and despite being thrilled to cover a hard-hitting and important story, I failed in the aspect of covering both sides. Like the world around us changing, I’m still changing too and learning every day. I may have been afraid then, but if I was thrown into that situation today, I firmly believe that I have the confidence and knowledge to confront the opposing side and get their statement, without fail. In this instance, both sides journalism was not only helpful, but absolutely necessary.

Recently in my classes the question has been debated: in what instance do we abandon both sides journalism in pursuit for the truth? More than that, are we required to tell all and every side of an issue, story etc. even if they don’t contribute to exposing the truth?

Pursuing both sides journalism becomes increasingly more difficult in today’s political climate. To remain fair when both sides are explaining their viewpoint is one thing, but to give a platform to a political party when they promote falsehoods that have been repeatedly disproven is another. When we allow our platform to be utilized to spread false information, we lose credibility and contribute to the distrust that the public has in the media. It has been debated that abandoning this practice can lead to imbalance in political reporting, leaning one way or another politically.

The idea of telling both sides of the story is simple in practice, but not when a journalist’s credibility is on the line. Their credibility is their livelihood, it is what their entire career is based upon. It is not as simple as giving one side a platform over another. Like detectives, we must provide evidence and proof to disprove falsehoods and misinformation. This requires digging and searching for facts, calling people for confirmation, and linking to your sources. It is not easy and is often extremely time consuming. But in the pursuit for honest and truthful journalism, it is more important to report the truth than it is to uphold both sides. We shouldn’t be pressured into providing a platform for lies to spread, even if that means sacrificing the “both sides’ ideal.

There is an old saying my parents have often used in our household: “There’s three sides to every story. Your version, my version, and the truth.” I will always be in search of the truth.

In conclusion, nothing these days is black and white. Journalism is facing challenges like never before. We are challenged to critically think when it is appropriate to use both sides journalism, when to abandon it, and most importantly; what will serve the public in the best way possible.

Written By Grace Vaughn

As entertaining as it can be to witness a billionaire make a bad investment, I have watched in fear for the last several months as Elon Musk’s grand plans for Twitter unfolded. His takeover has involved implementing new algorithms, embracing teetering policy practices and even restoring suspended accounts. Though, my growing concern over the subject lies in the fact that the platform has become a news source in many people’s lives.

I recall a moment in my business course last year when the professor stopped mid-lecture to ask the class where they got their news. Hands rose, each student with a similar response, “I check what’s trending on Twitter” or “My Twitter timeline”.

This, of course, is a well-known reality for my generation. Seventy four percent of Gen Z consume their daily news from social media platforms in this nation, according to the American Press Institute.

The problem that arises under Musk’s leadership is whether or not the social media app can still be a trusted place to find out what’s happening in the world. Since his purchase, Twitter has seen an increase not only in misinformation but also the amount of attention being given to these accounts. An investigation by Science Feedback concluded that 490 “superspreader” accounts gained a 44% increase in interactions since his acquisition of the social network company.

Combating the spread of false information no longer appears to be a priority at the company. Users are left to decipher the truth on their own as misleading content becomes more and more difficult to detect.

The site also established a certain level of trust among users by implementing the blue check mark. Dishing it out to politicians, journalists and other public figures, the small tick symbol appearing next to a person’s handle grew to represent credibility, but that is no longer the case.

Users of any kind can now apply and purchase verification under Musk’s new “Twitter Blue” program. Requirements to be considered are much simpler than before, including being an active account and displaying a profile photo. It is worth considering the fact that users may very well continue to correlate this familiar sign with trustworthiness and authenticity.

This leads us to the question of journalists’ role in this issue. Twitter is a pivotal resource for reporters and outlets allowing them to promote work, break stories and connect with sources. Yet, Musk’s Twitter doesn’t seem interested in protecting them or maintaining a safe space for the news.

It may be tempting for journalists to switch to an alternative app in the near future, like Mastodon, as their verifications slip away and accounts get suspended. However, the hard truth is that many people continue to turn to Twitter for information.

If this is the case, I believe we need journalists engaged on the platform. We need them pushing out reliable information. We need them fact-checking others’ content for the sake of users seeking out the truth. It feels like our responsibility to fight against the messiness of the platform for a little while longer.

###