{"id":8433,"date":"2016-11-29T05:03:15","date_gmt":"2016-11-29T05:03:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=8433"},"modified":"2016-11-30T05:10:15","modified_gmt":"2016-11-30T05:10:15","slug":"experts-roundtable-the-future-of-journalism-in-trumps-america","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/experts-roundtable-the-future-of-journalism-in-trumps-america\/","title":{"rendered":"Experts’ roundtable: The future of journalism in Trump’s America"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gerry Lanosga<\/a>, Indiana University, Bloomington <\/a><\/em>; Damian Radcliffe<\/a>, University of Oregon<\/a><\/em>; Frank Waddell<\/a>, University of Florida<\/a><\/em>; Glenn Scott<\/a>, Elon University<\/a><\/em>, and Jennifer Glover Konfrst<\/a>, Drake University<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump wasn\u2019t shy about his hostility toward journalists. His unexpected victory proved his doubters \u2013 which included many in the media \u2013 wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n

We\u2019ve gathered a group of media experts to explore the challenges facing journalists and the public under a Trump administration: restoring trust, sifting through propaganda, resisting being manipulated, reviving local news outlets and parsing fake news.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Resisting a master media manipulator<\/h2>\n

Gerry Lanosga, Assistant Professor of Journalism, Indiana University<\/strong><\/p>\n

When historians look back on Donald Trump\u2019s unexpected political rise, his mastery of media manipulation<\/a> will undoubtedly be one of the key factors they consider.<\/p>\n

During a campaign that made journalists a constant target<\/a> of his anti-establishment rhetoric, Trump was also able to capture a disproportionate share of media attention<\/a> by making outrageous, unpredictable statements. <\/p>\n

Remarkable as it was, this was not entirely uncharted territory. Trump is hardly the first politician to attack the press (Thomas Jefferson once claimed<\/a> newspapers \u201craven on the agonies of their victims, as wolves do on the blood of the lamb\u201d). And his tactic of cutting out the media middleman by using direct-to-audience messaging through Twitter? That, too, has precursors, from FDR\u2019s fireside chats<\/a> to Harry Truman\u2019s whistle-stop tour<\/a>, an echo of similar 19th-century campaigns. <\/p>\n

More broadly, presidents have always tried to influence the news media for political ends. \u201cNews management\u201d is a relatively recent term, but the idea goes back at least as far as Andrew Jackson<\/a>, whose publicity machine churned out news releases and choreographed press events.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s unique contribution to all this is his showman\u2019s instinct for creating news diversions that tend to draw attention away from his opponents or from more damaging stories. For example, Politico\u2019s Jack Shafer pointed out<\/a> that the media uproar from Trump\u2019s attack on the cast of \u201cHamilton\u201d booted the Trump University lawsuit settlement right out of the news cycle.<\/p>\n

Journalists will need vigilance and discipline to resist such manipulation. Those things haven\u2019t always been hallmarks of the White House press corps, which is often criticized<\/a> as timid, pack-oriented and overly chummy with official Washington. <\/p>\n

Such criticisms are reflected in declining public trust in news media<\/a>. At the same time, recent surveys have shown that Americans place high value on fact-checking<\/a> and investigative reporting<\/a>. <\/p>\n

But providing those things is challenging given today\u2019s reactionary news environment and the realities of the shrinking ranks of journalists covering the federal government<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s White House is sure to provide plenty of fascination for reporters, making it too easy for them to devote their time to his pronouncements or latest Twitter dust-up. Meanwhile, the shiny object at the top may distract from important news happening in lower precincts, namely the dozens of executive branch agencies that are key players on federal policy and trillions in spending.<\/p>\n

With the incoming administration promising to dramatically reshape federal government<\/a>, the duty to provide vigorous accountability reporting has never been more important.<\/p>\n

\n

Can transparency bridge the political divide?<\/h2>\n

Glenn Scott, Associate Professor of Communication, Elon University<\/strong><\/p>\n

Back when I began covering news as a daily reporter, I knew that my varied readers would draw their own conclusions from the stories I filed. But I also knew that those folks depended on my work and largely accepted it as true. <\/p>\n

Today, a wider, meaner and more partisan flow of ideas feeds public perceptions. Readers are more suspicious and willing to question the motives of the mainstream news media. Perhaps no one has stoked these suspicions more ostentatiously than President-elect Donald Trump, who has loudly discredited journalists who have criticized him. <\/p>\n

But even before Trump\u2019s win, the Pew Research Center pointed out that political news consumers could not even agree on \u201cbasic facts.\u201d<\/a> President Obama, remarking about the distortions and lies that characterized the campaigns, lamented recently<\/a> that it\u2019s hard to have serious debates and public discussions when the media has created an environment where \u201ceverything is true and nothing is true.\u201d<\/p>\n

For more than 30 years, scholars have been studying something called \u201cthe hostile media phenomenon<\/a>\u201d \u2013 the tendency of people with highly partisan views to perceive neutral coverage of their issue as unfair. To them, any coverage that doesn\u2019t align with their deeply held convictions is dangerous.<\/p>\n

The extent of this hostility leaves news media professionals with choices: They can ride this partisan shockwave, appealing to a fairly stable and perhaps profitable audience of believers<\/a>. Or they can try to overcome the anger and distrust with practices that reformers have been encouraging long before the bruising presidential campaigns. <\/p>\n

That first choice, according to innovating editor Alex Stonehill, is like grabbing low-hanging fruit. <\/p>\n

Stonehill, the cofounder of a daily news site in Seattle, argues for steps to embrace the full community, such as to \u201cmeet audiences where they are,\u201d to listen without judgment and to be open to all voices. In his cosmopolitan community, the local site\u2019s name points to its purpose: The Seattle Globalist<\/a>. <\/p>\n

On a national level, editors will also need to overcome the effects of media hostility. A few years ago, former newspaper editor Melanie Sill called for a revised approach to reporting \u2013 \u201copen journalism\u201d<\/a> \u2013 with an emphasis on service, transparency, accountability and responsiveness. These aren\u2019t new notions. But as Sill noted as she bundled them into one term, newsrooms often haven\u2019t innovated like they could. <\/p>\n

Transparency is key. Just as in academia, the wise way to build trust is to show the routes we take to gather and weigh information. Journalists are doing this more now, as calls for it have increased. A nice example is Susanne Craig\u2019s report in The New York Times<\/a> detailing the discovery of Trump\u2019s 1995 tax records that showed a US$915 million loss. It\u2019s hard to dub The Times a liar after that. Journalist Craig Silverman wrote a lengthy piece<\/a> on best practices for transparent reporting for the American Press Institute in 2014. Silverman is adept at revealing truths \u2013 and lies. He has been the Buzzfeed correspondent<\/a> breaking stories about fake journalism sites on Facebook. <\/p>\n

\n

An environment ripe for propaganda?<\/h2>\n

Jennifer Glover Konfrst, Assistant Professor of Public Relations, Drake University<\/strong><\/p>\n

The role of media as gatekeeper is critical in a democracy, and Americans expect them to call out propaganda when they see it. In a recent poll, 75 percent of respondents<\/a> said they believed that news organizations should keep political leaders from doing things that shouldn\u2019t be done. <\/p>\n

Propaganda thrives when the \u201cwatchdog\u201d role of journalists is restricted. While not all efforts to circumvent the media result in propaganda, the vacuum created can cause suspicion and mistrust. Propaganda is easier to perpetuate when you shut out the media. <\/p>\n

During the second term of the Obama administration, reporters and editors criticized the White House practice of closing events to the press, followed by the distribution of official White House photos to news organizations. In a 2013 New York Times op-ed<\/a>, the Associated Press\u2019 photography director slammed the practice. <\/p>\n

\n

\u201cUnless the White House revisits its draconian restriction on photojournalists\u2019 access to the president, information-savvy citizens, too, would be wise to treat those handout photos for what they are: propaganda.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In this aspect, the communication strategies of the nascent Trump administration don\u2019t look promising. When Trump bucked tradition<\/a> by ditching his pool of reporters to go to dinner, he signaled his continued desire to act on his own terms, without regard for the role of a free press. This is concerning, particularly from a person whose campaign claims were rated \u201cmostly false,\u201d \u201cfalse\u201d or \u201cpants on fire\u201d 70 percent of the time<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Also troubling is the fact that Steve Bannon \u2013 former executive chair of Breitbart News \u2013 has the president-elect\u2019s ear. Breitbart articles frequently promote the views of the so-called \u201calt-right,\u201d and former editor-at-large Ben Shapiro lamented<\/a> how the site had turned into \u201cTrump\u2019s personal Pravda.\u201d While Bannon resigned from Breitbart to become Trump\u2019s campaign CEO, he\u2019s called the traditional press<\/a> \u201csmug\u201d and \u201celitist.\u201d With that kind of vitriol toward media, Bannon will likely advise Trump to err on the side of restricted access.<\/p>\n

Fundamentally, our nation functions best when citizens have access to a free flow of information that can adequately check the policies and pronouncements political leaders. If the public is shut out, misled or told to distrust mainstream sources, propaganda spreads. Then we don\u2019t know what to believe. <\/p>\n

\n

A renewed focus on local journalism<\/h2>\n

Damian Radcliffe, Professor of Journalism, University of Oregon<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the Pew Research Center<\/a>, 20,000 jobs have disappeared in newsrooms over the past 20 years, many at the local level. The loss of local newspapers<\/a> created media deserts<\/a>: communities starved of original reporting and journalism.<\/p>\n

Although the industry economics remain challenging<\/a>, the need for local journalism is more important than ever<\/a>. Local outlets play a vital role in defining and informing communities. They can be the first<\/a> port of call for stories of national significance. They also help communities understand how national developments, whether they\u2019re changes in economic<\/a> or environmental<\/a> policy, apply to them.<\/p>\n

Fewer boots on the ground has created information voids that have been replaced<\/a> by cable news, talk radio, social networks and news websites with questionable values or goals. <\/p>\n

This creates a disconnect that needs to be addressed. A strong local media needs to be representative \u2013 demographically and culturally \u2013 of the communities being covered. Yet a 2013 study<\/a> found that over 90 percent of full-time journalists are college graduates. Just 7 percent identify as Republicans, around one-third are women, and minorities account for only 8.5 percent of the journalistic workforce (while making up 36.6 percent of the population).<\/p>\n

The good news is there are signs of reinvention and reinvigoration in local journalism. <\/p>\n

The Solutions Journalism Network<\/a>, the \u201caudience-first\u201d news start-up Hearken<\/a> and University of Texas\u2019 Engaging News Project<\/a> are encouraging community engagement. They\u2019ve made practical recommendations, from shifts in what is being reported to the way reporters present stories.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the ease of online publishing has helped engender an emerging hyperlocal scene<\/a>. In a 2011 study on the information needs of communities, the FCC acknowledged<\/a> that \u201ceven in the fattest-and-happiest days of traditional media, they could not regularly provide news on such a granular level.\u201d<\/p>\n

Still, these efforts are patchy and inconsistent. In an era of divisive post-truth politics, we need bold (well-funded) local journalism to speak truth to power, build social capital<\/a> and, in the process, instill a sense of pride in place.<\/p>\n

\n

Navigating the fake news landscape<\/h2>\n

Frank Waddell, Assistant Professor of Journalism, University of Florida<\/strong><\/p>\n

After the proliferation of fake news during the 2016 election cycle<\/a>, the journalism field has come to a grim realization: Accuracy is no longer necessary for news to reach a broad audience. This is particularly problematic on social media, where traditional journalistic functions such as gatekeeping aren\u2019t necessary. <\/p>\n

For journalists hoping to cope with the deluge of fake news, the first step is to understand why fake news stories are so successful. One reason is our default instinct to believe what we have been told<\/a>, a phenomenon that psychologists have coined \u201ctruth bias.\u201d We are also easily persuaded by the opinions of others<\/a>, so the likes, comments and shares of those in our social networks can affirm the validity of fake news stories. <\/p>\n

Meanwhile, when we\u2019re overwhelmed with information, we\u2019re more likely to take mental shortcuts like truth bias<\/a>. The average social media user often must sift through hundreds of news stories on Facebook or Twitter. When deciding whether to click the \u201cshare\u201d button, it\u2019s simply easier for readers to trust their gut and go along with the crowd than to carefully consider the veracity of the news story in question.<\/p>\n

With these obstacles to accuracy in mind, what can legacy media do? The burden falls on journalists and social media platforms. <\/p>\n

News outlets can educate the public in media literacy, debunking viral fake news along the way. Social media sites like Facebook must also do their part, not just by banning the most popular fake news sources, but also through offering their users with easy-to-process cues (like implementing a \u201cverified news\u201d tag) to indicate when news that has been posted by a reliable and established source. <\/p>\n

It may be our tendency to believe what we read, but that doesn\u2019t mean our natural instincts can\u2019t be reversed.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

Gerry Lanosga<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Journalism, Indiana University, Bloomington <\/a><\/em>; Damian Radcliffe<\/a>, Caroline S. Chambers Professor in Journalism, University of Oregon<\/a><\/em>; Frank Waddell<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Journalism, University of Florida<\/a><\/em>; Glenn Scott<\/a>, Associate Professor of Communication, Elon University<\/a><\/em>, and Jennifer Glover Konfrst<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Public Relations, Drake University<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This article was originally published on The Conversation<\/a>. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gerry Lanosga, Indiana University, Bloomington ; Damian Radcliffe, University of Oregon; Frank Waddell, University of Florida; Glenn Scott, Elon University, and Jennifer Glover Konfrst, Drake University During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump wasn\u2019t shy about his hostility toward journalists. His unexpected victory proved his doubters \u2013 which included many in the media \u2013 wrong. We\u2019ve […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":43,"featured_media":8434,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[479,1617,1614,785,1615,308,11,1616,13,789,533],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8433"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/43"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8433"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8433\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8435,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8433\/revisions\/8435"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}