Note: The views and opinions expressed in blog/editorial posts are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of Misbar.
“It’s always an angry white man. Always.”
USA Today Editor Hemal Jhevari tweeted this allegation shortly after news began to spread of the March 22 mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado. Social media was the normal circus of accusations and assumptions that day. Several people published posts admonishing white male violence and stating that the shooter was apprehended, rather than being shot, because of his race. The following day Boulder Police reported that the shooter was a Syrian immigrant named Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa. Some apologized for their haste while others remained silent—unable to admit such a glaring mistake.
Hemal Jhevari worked at USA Today for almost eight years, according to her post on Medium. From Social Media Editor to Race and Inclusion Editor, Jhevari rose to a comfortable position. It seems she forgot about journalistic integrity along the way though: USA Today fired Jhevari for her tweet.
Journalists struggle to keep up in a world consumed by social media. In the early 70s, economist Anthony Downs summed up this phenomenon with his theory of the “Issue-Attention Cycle”. In his 1972 book, Up and Down with Ecology-the Issue-Attention Cycle, he writes about how a new story “leaps into prominence, remains there for a short time, and then—though still largely unresolved—gradually fades from the center of public attention.” The days of issuing newspapers once or twice a day are gone and control of how fast the news moves has gone with them, but the Issue-Attention Cycle perseveres.
The events following Jhevari’s tweet brings attention to the swift-moving nature of news. A globalized network of information offers a constant stream of events and opinions. The Issue-Attention Cycle operates at a much higher rate and the global nature of news has made journalists more competitive. In order to keep up, journalists sometimes speculate facts and use dubious wording to hide their assumptions. Journalists and news providers often issue corrections when they discover new information, but the damage is already done. Public belief in journalistic integrity wanes.
The Edelman Trust Barometer, which measures public trust in various global institutions, illustrates that only 35% of the people in the world trust social media for news. Also according to the Barometer, traditional media only holds a 53% grip on public perceptions of trustworthiness. Incidents of journalists making hasty judgements do not help matters and Gallup polls show that readers do not want journalists’ opinions—they want facts.
Social media blurs the lines of opinion and fact for a lot of people. In his 2008 book, Journalism, Ethics, and Society David Berry notes “ordinary people now have the power to reach a wider audience and the only difference is the way in which news is mediated… the public can take liberties… journalists are, in theory at least, expected to mediate their news by objective means.” Jhevari’s overgeneralization that white males are “always” responsible for mass shootings was not only incorrect in the Boulder shooting, but also incorrect in 49% of cases. She used social media to vent her opinion, and paid dearly for it.
The American Press Institute lists a few of the elements of journalism as follows: “journalism’s first obligation is to the truth,” “its essence is a discipline of verification,” and “its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.” Jhevari ignored all of these tenets when issuing her tweet. Working as a Race and Inclusion Editor, she should implicitly avoid making a derogatory statement about a certain racial demographic. She explained her actions by stating “it was a dashed off over-generalization… a careless error of judgement, sent at a heated time, that doesn’t represent my commitment to racial equality.” Anyone can understand the very human behavior Jhevari admits to. What’s harder to understand is the pressure placed on journalists and mass media sources to report as quickly as possible. With all this being said, imagine the stress of having to behave in your personal life as an ethical and principled objective journalist. Most people’s Facebook or Twitter feeds show them incapable of holding themselves to the same standards they demand be imposed on someone like Jhevari.
Misinformation abounds in modern journalism. The degradation of trust by the public lies at the feet of no single source. “Fact-checking” is an action traditional media was once relied upon to perform. Some complain that fact-checking itself is plagued by partisan and biased writers. In fact, a person may not even be aware of their bias and their selective perception may only cause greater polarization for readers. Journalists, by principle, must hold themselves to a higher standard of objective observation.
Jhevari is not the only employee to lose a job due to misinformation. Long-time, NBC journalist Brian Williams continuously reported seeing combat in 2003 with U.S. troops and, according to NBC, a litany of other “inaccurate statements.” The guillotine can fall on any journalist, regardless of fame.
While journalists and other employees of mass media are sometimes held accountable for misinformation, private citizens and social media users often are not. There are some notable occasions where people have been fired over their social media activities, but this is not the majority. Various social media outlets began fact checking popularly shared news. The term “fact-check” receives either derision or applause, depending on which side of the political spectrum a reader lies. Whether or not these efforts have impeded misinformation or not remains to be seen.
Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.
