Call me crazy, but for a good portion of my life my daily routine went something like this…
Wake up, place a mobile order, go to Dunkin’, get a “sweet treat”, Repeat.
Some may even call me insane — and they’d be right. Insanity, by definition, is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. I unfortunately can’t help myself.
Dunkin’ holds a special place in my heart. This place is sacred to me and my mom… even if she doesn’t know it.
I was introduced to the joys of a tasty iced coffee at the ripe age of I don’t even know when! However, if we look back, my addiction to my local Dunkin’ drive through isn’t new to my coffee era.
Hitting the Dunkin’ drive throughs on hot summer afternoons with my mother seems to be where this ritual formed in my brain as a necessary daily activity. To me, it was more than a pitstop on our route home.
Sitting in the Dunkin’ drive through was a bonding experience. Something that tied me and her together. Something so small and so miniscule most would fail to notice. It was our time away from the rest of the world to catch up on the latest drama.
I didn’t always order an over-caffeinated beverage. My favorite drink as a kid was the infamous coolatta. Now I know what you’re probably thinking; I can still have a coolatta! Kept my loyalties to a beverage where the caffeine didn’t feed my jitterbugs. No one was forcing me to drink an iced coffee, but let’s be realistic. There may be no age limit on the Dunkin’ Coolatta, but if I were to guess the fine print probably reads “for kids ages 5 through 12.”
Dunkin’ watched me evolve as I ditched the coolatas and moved on to bigger and better things… like a small iced coffee loaded with creamer, sugar, and flavored syrup.
As I got older I frequented the same drive through every day. It was different though. I now had my license and my mom was speaking from the inside of my sound system. I spent more time with my friends before school, leaving my mom and I’s special drive through time in the past.
Come senior year, my friends and I practically clinked our medium iced coffees together on our last day. One last treat before we went our separate ways.
When it was time for my next chapter I made the decision to head to Bridgewater State University. Moving away from home was intimidating and scary. I was miles away from my home, my friends, and my comfort drive through. Would it even remember me when I returned for fall break???
Scared half to death, my roommate and I timidly wandered around new and uncharted territories.
In our search for the book store we came across a Dunkin’ right on campus. Although I may have been far from home, the smell of coffee grounds, the sounds of the never ending receipts printing, and the blinding orange and pink decor made me feel right at home.
So when people ask me “what was the catalyst for my raging coffee addiction?” I tell them it must’ve happened somewhere along my college experience even though I know that deep down it started a long long time ago. A time when it was just me, my mother and a blue raspberry coolatta.
This years New York’s Rockefeller Center tree, a Norway spruce, has been selected from West Stockbridge, Massachusetts. The tree is being topped with a Swarvoski star for the live TV broadcast unveiling happening on December 4. it will be on display until mid-January and is the first tree to come from Massachusetts since 1959.
Biased media is causing significant damage to today’s society. Media sources have the power to influence things as big as elections, and as small as any average day to day decision. Since 2016 with the election of Donald Trump as president, the United States has seen an uptick in the usage of the term, “fake news.” While there has been an increase in the usage of the term, the idea of fake news is something that, in reality, has been around for quite some time. Bias exists in most media forms and outlets that produce news. While this is the case, many people believe that they have the ability to spot biased forms of media.
In a book titled, “Journalism and Truth in an Age of Social Media,” by James E. Katz and Kate K. Mays, the authors talk about how fake news in reality, isn’t a new thing. They found that 84% of people believe they have the ability to spot fake news on their own. However, 67% of Americans look toward social media as their source of fake news, despite the lack of trust in these sources. As many as 14% have even willingly shared news that they knew was false. This is a concerning metric, and further increases the need for awareness, and a solution to the fake news dilemma.
Former President Donald Trump sits at the defense table with his defense team in a Manhattan court, April 4, 2023, in New York. – Seth Wenig/AP
“This judge is the judge that determines the jury instructions. The jury instructions are the roadmap for non-attorneys and jurors to follow the law. It’s going to be critical and frankly, at this point, I have zero confidence in the fact that this person, who should not be sitting on the bench right now, will do the right thing and give jury instructions that are in an appropriate manner without any persuasion towards the prosecution” – Alina Habba, Trump’s Attorney
“There was no case… We’ve been sitting here. We saw no facts, and the last resort for the prosecution is going to be this judge with political motivations, going to give them instructions on how to decide the fate of a former president and the future president of the United States” – Alina Habba, Trump’s Attorney
Given some of former President Donald Trump’s past quotes referencing how this case is biased and / or rigged, it is clear to see why he chose Alina Habba as his defense. These quotes obviously lean towards Trump’s side in these legal battles. Alina Habba, Trump’s attorney, is clearly backing her client, and FOX news is choosing to print these quotes instead of the quotes that support the prosecution. The judge in question, Judge Juan Merchan, is a well respected judge within the judicial system, and FOX likely knows that printing this will change some peoples opinion on him.
Former President Donald Trump and lawyer Alina Habba attend the Trump Organization civil fraud trial, in New York State Supreme Court in New York City, Nov 6, 2023. Brendan McDermid/Reuters
CNN:
CNN, however, prints and releases some very different quotes regarding Trump’s trials. In CNN’s article, “Closing arguments for Trump’s hush money trial begin Tuesday. Here’s what to know,” author Devan Cole talks about the closing arguments regarding Trump’s court battle with the state of New York. The quotes here differ greatly from those of FOX’s. Clearly, these support the prosecution and New York state. Some of these biased quotes include:
“The other theme, she said, could be: ‘Look at the kind of people Trump values,’ with prosecutors arguing the former president chose to surround himself with people such as Cohen and Pecker, who were doing Trump’s bidding ahead of the 2016 election.” – Cole and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Manhattan District Attorney’s Office
“And even if you do not rely on them, the third theme is going to be, ‘You don’t have to, because everything is corroborated either by other witnesses or documents or records or Trump’s own words.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Manhattan District Attorney’s Office
“These are his people, he chose them. And he shouldn’t now get the benefit of, ‘Because they’re flawed you can’t rely on them.’” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Manhattan District Attorney’s Office
These quotes given by a source in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office are clearly leaning towards the prosecution. CNN, generally a left leaning media source, knows their audience. They know that if they don’t print quotes that support the prosecution, their readers may pivot to other sources.
Unbiased News: Example
Not all news is biased. There are some pretty good examples of unbiased news in the media. For example, an article from NPR’s newsletter, “Up First,” Suzanne Nuyen talks about approaching the final results of Trump’s Trials. She includes quotes from people who support both sides. Nuyen included the following quote:
“NPR’s Domenico Montanaro tells Up First that respondents had very different takes on the trial. One told NPR producer Janet Woojeong Lee that the trial affirmed for him that nobody should vote for Trump. Another called the trial a ‘farce.’ Montanaro says this is the world we live in. ‘People have very different views of our politics…especially of Donald Trump. And those views are, for the most part, very locked in.'” – Suzanne Nuyen
This examples gives two sides of the story. One side which believes in the defense, and one in the prosecution. In the article, Nuyen never picks a side. She reports on both the defense and the prosecution, allowing for fair and even coverage on the events.
Bias in Media: Yellow Journalism
While this court case is just one example of bias in media, specifically news media, it is just one small example amongst thousands that are posted each day. Readers are far more likely to read or view media that shares their own thoughts and ideals. The following videos from PBS speaks on the ideas of, “Yellow Journalism,” and how it can be used to upsell another story by talking about a historic example of this.
As seen in the video above, it is pretty clear that historically, some news sources and outlets have a history of changing headlines, and even changing the news a little to sell to their target audience. In the past, papers were more bold about it, printing headlines and information that was often just a flat out lie such as, “USS Maine Sunk by Spanish,” as explained in the video above. Exaggerated news is not a new thing, it’s just used differently now. Biased quotes, biased sources, and other ways of changing a story are very common now.
Why Biased Media is Bad
News media has the ability to influence the media like no other source really does. The media continues to influence and further divide the readers that take it all as truth. The examples above demonstrate that. Historically, stories have been exaggerated since people started getting their news from media sources, often to influence their readers in one direction or another. The Yellow Journalism section above is an excellent example of this. People should be taking in news media, and making their decisions based on fact. In today’s climate, it is almost impossible to find a news source that isn’t biased, one way or another.
Users should be able to filter through any media source, and find something unbiased to make informed decisions on. Until that happens, extremely biased news media will continue to force decisions from their readers, who may not have all the information that could be available to them.
In this digital age, news stories covering politics and social issues are becoming more and more polarized.
In a 2020 Pew Research study, it found that 79% of Americans believe that news coverage in the country leans one-sided, while only 20% believe that these organizations deal fairly with all sides. It seems to be a growing issue in western media, especially now, as many news organizations are facing criticism for their coverage of the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched its deadly attack on Israel, prompting Israel Defense Forces to respond with several aerial campaigns and on ground operations in the Gaza Strip. Since then, over 2 million Gazans have been forced to flee their homes due to the conflict. Recent data places casualties at around 36,000 Palestinians and 1,139 Israeli citizens, including over two dozen children.
Latest reports of deaths and injuries from Israel’s War on Gaza. Image from Al-Jazeera
There has been an outpouring of international support to push for a ceasefire resolution and develop a long-term concept for peace between the two states. Many countries, such as Norway and Ireland, have publicly recognized Palestine as an independent state and students across the globe have taken part in encampment protests to push for their universities’ divestment from Israel-linked organizations. However, major media outlets such as the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post have shown consistent bias against Palestinians, failing to show the impact that this violence has had on those within the conflict zone.
So in what ways does this news bias appear?
News bias can take many different forms, from word choice and tone, to labeling of certain groups, and even the selection of visuals for a story. While bias does have some influence over the presentation of facts, it is not always detectable.
In the case of major U.S. newspapers and their coverage on the conflict in Gaza, the bias present often exists in the imbalances of voices covered and the favoring of Israeli narratives over others.
In an analysis done by the Intercept, an American nonprofit news organization, they collected over 1,000 articles published during the first six weeks of the conflict from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. They tallied the number of usages of certain key terms and the contexts they were used in.
The results from this analysis found that there was a disproportionate coverage of deaths on each side, as well as the lack of mention of the high death rates among Gazan children and journalists during the conflict. In stories all covered by the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, the words “Israeli” or “Israel” appeared more times than “Palestinian” or any other variation of that, even with Palestinian deaths rapidly outpacing that of Israelis. For every two Palestinians killed, they are only mentioned once. Also, there was noticeably higher usage of emotive terms such as “slaughter” and “massacre” when reporting on the killing of Israeli civilians, compared to that of civilian casualties.
Graphic on disproportionate coverage of death tolls in three major U.S. newspapers, provided by The Intercept
An example of this type of behavior from reporters can be seen in the coverage stories of the October 7 attack. In a piece by the New York Times dated November 2023, the headline read “They Ran Into Bomb Shelters for Safety. Instead They Were Slaughtered”. The word choice for the headline (ex: “slaughtered”) and the tone of voice were blatantly meant to evoke sympathetic emotions from audiences, which is understandable given the situation. However, comparing that to the Times’s profile on Palestinian deaths, which was titled “ The War Turns Gaza Into a ‘Graveyard’ for Children,” there seems to be a higher level of disconnect. In this case, “graveyard” is replacing any level of accountability for the mass killings by Israeli forces. With examples such as these, there is such identifiable bias towards the Israeli state and can be harmful in shaping people’s opinion on the conflict.
So what can be done to fix this issue?
Images from global Free Palestine protests, provided by AP News
There is a growing push for more balanced media coverage on the issue, mainly by those in support of Palestinian liberation. With many western world leaders, including the United States, refusing to recognize the horrific acts committed by Israel against Palestinians, the press can be a powerful tool in rallying public support. It is important that the news media and journalists prioritize fairness in their reporting. Although not without its difficulties, they must do what they can to reach both sides of the issue.
If the news media were to uphold a level of accountability, then it could help give a voice to the millions in Palestine begging to be heard.
Before NIL rules, it was prohibited for college athletes to have endorsements, promote products, or even autograph items for any amount of money. Now in college sports, student athletes even receive a small percentage of their jersey sales and some athletes can make well over six figures or even millions from their own name, image, and likeness. In 2024, some college athletes will have the opportunity to get paid even more through their schools, but is that going too far? The initial NIL implications were put in place to avoid ‘pay-for-play’, but after a huge NCAA settlement, it is likely that schools will be obligated to compensate athletes for play.
Screenshot of University of North Carolina’s RJ Davis Jersey for Sale [Image Credit: Shopgoheels.com]
On May 23, 2024 the proposed $2.8 billion House vs. NCAA settlement for a group of antitrust laws may allow schools to directly pay students athletes as soon as 2025. This $2.8 billion would be split up amongst athletes who played during the 2016-2021 stint, where signing endorsements were forbidden. The NCAA will pay 40% of the settlement and leave the rest to the universities of all power five conferences ( ACC,Big Ten, Big 12, PAC-12, and SEC). The settlement raises a bunch of questions for former and current athletes. Why are players prior to the 2016 season not eligible for back pay? How much could student athletes get paid in the future? When will it be approved? And most importantly, how will this affect lower revenue sports? The future of college athletics is uncertain and constantly changing.
Pete Thamel Announcement of Power conferences settlement to allow schools to pay players. [Image Credit: Pete Thamel X account]
Other concerns include the implication of Title IX and the equal pay of athletes based on the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funds. The implications of the settlement could mean further legal battles for years to come. Rightfully so, lawsuits will be found everywhere if the NCAA fails to protect or find loopholes to work around Title IX rules. They should not aim to compensate separately in sports where there are both men’s and women’s teams at universities. Settlements such as the recent $2.8 billion don’t happen if the institutions in place continuously makes efforts to ensure that policies and laws constitute fairness.
Espn Breaks news of Iowa Announcing Caitlin Clark’s Jersey Retirement. [Image Credit: Espn Instagram]
Such fairness should continually be in discussion when it comes to settlements, lawsuits, policy and rules regarding collegiate athletics. For too long college athletes and their talents have been exploited by the NCAA. If there had been a better system put in place, there would be no need for $2.8 billion dollar payouts. The NIL rules and policies are simply a foot in the door that is leading to a much more beneficial college experience for many athletes. If institutions are not careful about their policies, rules, and regulations, we may see many sports leave the college landscape. On top of this, lawsuits will pile up and questions about the structure of the NCAA and their integrity will rise.
These days, it seems that the news is filled with stories about powerful figures falling from grace. But it’s unusual to watch two brothers go down together.
This case is about news anchor Chris Cuomo getting fired from CNN in 2021. His brother, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, was accused of sexual harassment, and the CNN anchor helped create legal defenses and offered to find out information about the cases brought against him.
Governor Cuomo rose to fame during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 by holding news conferences where he spoke directly to citizens about the state of New York and its efforts to combat the spread of the virus. His candidness attracted people all over the country to tune in. At a time when we needed guidance, Governor Cuomo became the leader we were looking for. He even won an Emmy award for his briefings. Why is all of this important? Because it made Governor Cuomo a popular public figure, and COVID-19 was the topic of discussion when he appeared on his brother’s show.
NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, in grey, hosts a news conference about COVID-19. Image Credit/ Governor’s Office
Chris Cuomo on set of his show, Cuomo Prime Time, on CNN. Image Credit/ Jeremy Freeman, CNN
The problems for the Cuomo brothers began when Governor Cuomo was accused of sexual harassment by a former woman staffer in 2020, in the midst of his popular news conferences. Earlier this year, the justice department concluded that he harassed, or was complicit in the harassment, of around a dozen women. He denied all the allegations and eventually resigned from his role in August of 2021.
Still photo of Chris Cuomo, left, on air during his CNN show Cuomo Prime Time with guest, his brother Governor Andrew Cuomo. Image Credit/ Syracuse.com
This posed ethical questions. Should a political news anchor get closely involved in legal affairs of a political figure? Should he use his connections to find out about any future allegations or breaking stories about his brother? Even if they didn’t discuss the allegations, could he discuss other topics with him while still remaining impartial?
CNN determined that the host’s involvement was, indeed, unethical. They conducted an investigation and suspended Cuomo at first. He was then fired in December of 2021 after additional information was found. This was the right decision in order to keep the integrity of the network. It’s not unethical to support your family, but it is when you are part of his defense team because you can’t remain impartial to the story, whether you report on it or not. Ultimately, CNN and Chris Cuomo are both to blame; they should have kept with their original plan and never let Governor Cuomo on the show. This created a slippery slope for the CNN anchor. Ethics should have been considered and valued over the desire to make entertaining TV. The only way around this would have been if Cuomo stepped away from his show while the allegations against his brother were being investigated, like journalism professor Steven Thrasher says. Instead, Cuomo showed where his loyalties lie: family first.
References:
Bauder, D. (2021, March). CNN’s Chris Cuomo says he ‘obviously’ can’ cover brother. Retrieved from Associated Press website: https://apnews.com/article/chris-cuomo-andrew-cuomo-cnn-coverage-dc8f9661f53a69790887af17857228d3
Chris Cuomo explains why he can’ cover recent allegations about his brother [Video file]. Retrieved from CNN on https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/03/02/governor-andrew-cuomo-news-cuomo-cpt-sot-vpx.cnn
Dwyer, C. (2020, November). Andrew Cuomo to receive international Emmy for ‘masterful’ covid-19 briefings. Retrieved from NPR website: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/11/21/937445923/andrew-cuomo-to-receive-international-emmy-for-masterful-covid-19-briefings
Li, D. K. (2021, November). More details revealed about Chris Cuomo’s role as adviser tot brother, former governor. Retrieved from NBC News website: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/details-revealed-chris-cuomos-role-advisor-brother-former-governor-rcna6975
Lybrand, H. and Cole, D. (2024, January). Justice department settlement concludes Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed state employees. Retrieved from CNN website: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/politics/doj-cuomo-sexual-harassment-new-york/index.html
Milligan, S. (2020, March). How coronavirus made Andrew Cuomo America’s governor. Retrieved from U.S. News & World Report website: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-03-23/how-coronavirus-made-andrew-cuomo-americas-governor
Sarnoff, M. (2021, April). CNN’s Chris Cuomo wins key ratings demo in the quarter for first time ever. Retrieved from Mediaite website: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-chris-cuomo-wins-key-ratings-demo-in-the-quarter-for-first-time-ever/
Stelter, B. (2021, December). CNN fires Chris Cuomo. Retrieved from CNN Business website: https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/media/cnn-fires-chris-cuomo/index.html
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. (2024, January). Justice department secures settlement agreement with state of New York executive chamber to resolve sexual harassment and retaliation claims under title VII. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-settlement-agreement-state-new-york-executive-chamber-resolve
Villeneuve, M. (2021, August). Gov. Andrew Cuomo resigns over sexual harassment allegations. Retrieved from Associated Press website: https://apnews.com/article/andrew-cuomo-resigns 17161f546bb83c32a337036ecf8d2a34#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20—%20Gov,of%20the%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic.
Image of 10 TV screens with different colored TV static replicating LGBTQ+ pride flags with a silhouette standing in front (Photo from Tessa Kaur, Heckinunicorn.com)
Public speculation of celebrity sexuality is not a new trend. Who is dating who, is a constant topic of gossip and debate in media spheres. This is not unique to the LGBTQ+ community. However, speculation of sexual orientation in the media crosses an ethical boundary that cannot be compared to discussions of straight sexuality. The real issue is when those engaging in these debates intentionally, or unintentionally, out closeted celebrities.
Outing is the act of publicly revealing the sexual orientation or gender identity of an LGBTQ+ individual without their consent. In the past, outing was often intended to discredit individuals or cause physical or emotional harm. As acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities has increased, outing has taken on new forms with different intentions.
Queer fans often speculate celebrity sexual orientation as a way of connecting with an individual’s art or the characters they portray. There are few mainstream portrayals of queer characters and groups that areboth encouraging and accurate.
According to Jaimie Lorite, LGBTQ+ youth are, “hungry for representation. It’s understandable that a person who is coming to terms with who they are, figuring out their identity, what they like and who they fall in love with, needs to have some role models. So, you project yourself onto other people.” Online spaces that discuss sexuality of characters and celebrities are often some of the first places where queer youth experience a sense of acceptance and community. Although, even Lorite admits that, “those projections can go too far.”
Online communities have grown protective over queer characters, roles and spaces. While this is not inherently bad, it has caused some fans to be apprehensive and critical of who is “allowed” into these spaces. This spouts accusations of queerbaiting online that lead to forced outings of celebrities.
Image of a cartoon TV, a fishing hook baited with a rainbow is on the screen (photo from The Wildcat Tribune)
Queerbaiting is a marketing technique used to engage LGBTQ+ audiences. This involves promises of or allusions to queer representation in entertainment, while having minimal concrete follow through. Typically, this accusation is made at studios or executives, but has recently been used against real people who choose to not disclose their sexuality. In this sense, when someone accuses a celebrity of “queerbaiting” they mean that they are presenting themselves as queer and are intentionally maintaining ambiguity about their sexuality in order to reap the benefits of LGBT support without being a part of the community. This accusation is also cast at straight presenting actors who portray queer characters.
While these accusations may be made with the intent of “protecting” queer spaces, it more often than not puts closeted celebrities in a position where they are forced to come out in order to protect their career and reputation in queer circles.
Cartoon of Nick Nelson from the Heartstopper comic frowning holding a bisexual flag with a paper taped to his back that says “QUEERBAITER!” an arm is pointing at him with “ALLY” written on it (Cartoon by Maurice Gimena)
For example, Kit Connor gained fame from his role as Nick Nelson on the Netflix series, Heartstopper. Shortly after the show’s release, fans on Twitter began criticizing Netflix for casting Connor, an apparently straight actor, in a bisexual role. This speculation gained traction and led to fans harassing the star through the platform for not being upfront about his sexuality. In October of 2022, he took to Twitter to respond to these allegations saying,
“back for a minute. i’m bi. congrats for forcing an 18 year old to out himself. i think some of you missed the point of the show. Bye.”
Billie Eilish on the red carpet of the 2023 Variety Hitmaker Event (Photo from Variety)Screen shot from Billie Eilish’s 2021 music video “Lost Cause”
Another example of this sort of “outing” occurred more recently with singer Billie Eilish. In 2021, Eilish released a music video for her song, “Lost Cause”. The video had the public accusing her of sexualizing queer female relationships in order to get views. The singer did not comment on her sexuality publicly until her November 2023 cover story for Variety Magazine. Though she did not provide a label to herself, she mentioned her attraction to women and many took this as her way of coming out. In December at the Variety Hitmaker’s Event, a journalist for the magazine addressed Eilish on the red carpet, pressing if she “intended to come out as bisexual” in her cover shoot. She later took to Instagram saying,
“Thanks variety for my award and for also outing me on a red carpet at 11 am instead of talking about anything else that matters.”
In these situations, both Eilish and Connor were ridiculed across media for their chosen expression of sexuality and pressured to come out on terms that were not their own.
But how will we know if a celebrity is queer if they don’t come out?We won’t. A hard pill to swallow for social media users and journalists alike is that no one is entitled to know someone’s sexuality. Celebrity or not, all individuals deserve privacy when it comes to disclosure of sexual orientation.
For social media users: think before you Tweet. Users need to be more socially conscious of their activity online, especially in regards to situations like this. While users may have intentions of protecting their community, they only further perpetuate harm and hate that the LGBTQ+ community is staunchly against by engaging in these activities.
As for journalists,when it comes to discussing a celebrity’s sexuality, follow their lead. Sexuality is a hot topic, but one’s journey should not be sensationalized against the will of the individual. Fan debates do not equate to front page news. Be an ally. Sensitivity and loyalty to the groups you are reporting on in these contexts further ensures accuracy, credibility and integrity in your reporting. And remember, in the words of Grace Huntly,
“People’s sexualities are not the business of their employers or fans. It is wrong to speculate about others’ sexuality or pressure them to come out for any reason. Sexuality is personal and should not require justification or confirmation.”
References:
admin, S. F. (2024, February 5). LGBTQIA Resource Center Glossary. LGBTQIA Resource Center. https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary#:~:text=Terms%20also%20used%20that%20correlate,to%20keep%20this%20information%20secret.
Collins, R. (2023, December 4). Billie Eilish accuses variety of “outing” her in cover story. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-67611825
Fried, S. (2019, May 13). Queerbait. Medium. https://medium.com/@sfried001/queerbait-bee6fa21edb1
Huntley, G. (2023, January 16). Opinion: Celebrities don’t owe anyone their sexuality. The Charlatan, Carleton’s independent newspaper. https://charlatan.ca/opinion-celebrities-dont-owe-anyone-their-sexuality/
Lorite, J. (2022, November 11). The Kit Connor Dilemma: Must we know an actor’s sexuality before they can play a gay role? EL PAÍS English. https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-11/the-kit-connor-dilemma-must-we-know-the-sexuality-of-actors-before-they-can-play-a-gay-role.html
Matthew’s Place. (2023, December 28). This is why the media needs respect our (queer) privacy. Medium. https://medium.com/matthews-place/this-is-why-the-media-needs-respect-our-queer-privacy-56d676c205de
NBCU Academy. (2024, January 31). Reporting on queerness and what it means to come out. https://nbcuacademy.com/come-out-celebrities/
“outing” of LGBT celebrities like rebel Wilson has a harrowing past – media diversity institute. Media Diversity Institute – Media Diversity Institute. (2022, June 14). https://www.media-diversity.org/outing-of-lgbt-celebrities-like-rebel-wilson-has-a-harrowing-past/
Ramsden, S. (2021, June 15). The Billie Eilish queerbaiting controversy, explained. Bustle. https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/the-billie-eilish-queerbaiting-controversy-explained
A printed newspaper with a magnifying glass highlighting an underlying message of “Fake” on the front page headline (Photo by Alswart via Adobe Stock)
When you read news online, do you ever stop to think if it is true? If a celebrity posts a story, do you question their sources? If you answered no, you should start.
Reporting news by a medium first began with newspapers. Since then, journalism has continued to evolve, from newspapers to radio, television, and most recently, online platforms. With each new form of media came new laws and codes of ethics. These were put in place to protect journalists and the public. One of the biggest rules for reporters is to tell the truth.
Currently, we have reached a point in history where it might be time for new regulations. Fake news is not a fresh concept but has reached new heights. Bakir and McStay defined fake news as “…news that is entirely false and deliberately misleading…” (as cited in Tsang, 2021, p. 1060). An example of fake news is during the pandemic, with false COVID-19 remedies. Fake news goes entirely against the journalist’s code of ethics. The use of social media is the reason for reaching new heights. Information is spread quickly with social media.
“The new technologies are means of communication have facilitated an information environment that makes it easier for misinformation to circulate, with social media becoming a breeding ground for fast-spreading fake news” -Messaoud (p. 26).
Online platforms give the public information instantly with twenty-four-seven access. This can cause an overwhelming amount of content. As stated by Stephanie Tsang, “…it is unreasonable to expect them to check the validity of every single piece of information they encounter. In fact, they might only fact-check information that they find suspicious.” Assuming a large sum of content material daily, it would be impossible to always fact-check. Online platforms allow the public to distribute their own news. “Social media ensures fast publication, free circulation, and lax censorship, which is all a rumor needs to spread widely” as stated by Messaoud (p. 28). Typically, these misleading stories are to sway someone’s opinions.
With advances in artificial intelligence (AI), fake news has become harder to discriminate from trustworthy news. The U.S. Department of State has defined AI as “…a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.” Using AI, people can create and manipulate an image or video to portray a story as believable. As fake news has become harder to spot, audiences are not considering them to be suspicious.
Graphic showing the results of a poll from 2023 on AI generated news and the realistic of the stories (Photo by Ipsos Global Advisor)
NBC News and USA Today have both reported on cases of fake news that show just how believable AI images can be. In both cases, an image was manipulated to cause panic in others. The intention worked, as many thought it was true and re-share the stories. In the NBC News example, the image caused changes in the stock market.
Example of AI manipulated photo of Cinderella’s castle at Walt Disney World on fire (Photo by Mouse Trap News)
“Unlike humans, machines do not have a code of ethics; they are technological systems that follow the guidelines set by their programmers” – Rubio and Torrijos (2024)
Fake news is an ethical concern because it can lead to many harmful things. Misinformation can damage one’s reputation, form biases, enforce racism, and cause a crisis. This is because, with AI, there is no reporting on both sides. Instead, it only generates one-sided stories. These stories tend to catch the attention of those with the same beliefs. They then feel their views have been confirmed.
Unfortunately, fake news tends to catch the attention of the public. Shin and Kee have said, “misinformation spreads more rapidly and broadly than reliable information does…” (p. 241). This is because, typically, fake news is viewed as bad or sad news. Researchers believe that people tend to read negative articles over positive ones as there are more “…potential costs of negative information far outweigh the potential benefits of positive information” (Soroka, 2015). For example, the public would click on a potentially fake story about stocks going down over a real story about a food back feeding millions. As there is a chance to lose money, the reader will click on the story of stocks going down.
With fake news growing, regulations need to be put in place. Guidelines need to be established for those reporting fake news to take responsibility. As this type of news can cause crisis, the creator needs to understand the consequences of their actions. A potential consequence for the reporter could be, being sued for the spread of false information.
Ben Messaoud, M. (2021). Social media and the COVID-19 pandemic: The dilemma of fake news clutter vs. social responsibility. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 14(1), 25–45. https://doi-org.proxy3.noblenet.org/10.1386/jammr_00023_1
Tsang, S. J. (2021). Motivated Fake News Perception: The Impact of News Sources and Policy Support on Audiences’ Assessment of News Fakeness. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(4), 1059–1077. https://doi-org.proxy3.noblenet.org/10.1177/1077699020952129
(Fake News Graphic, Fake News: The Health Misinformation Epidemic. Article)
Misinformation also known as “false information” is “inaccurate information…intended to deceive.” (Oxford Language Dictionary) This form of information can be dangerous especially when used with health knowledge and guidance. The issue with misinformation can be understood with a quote from KFF President and CEO Drew Altman, “Most people aren’t true believers in the lies or the facts about health issues; they are in a muddled middle…The public’s uncertainty leaves them vulnerable to misinformation but is also the opportunity to combat it.” (KFF Misinformation Poll). This citation conveys that with the existence of truth and lies, it’s hard to distinguish which information can help or harm you.
The increased presence of social media has made misinformation spread like wildfire. Social media consumes our lives daily. The desire for health-related information has increased since COVID-19. (HHS) Social media allows for the instantaneous spread of information regardless of its credibility or accuracy.
At the height of the pandemic, (Weekly) death rates reached almost 26,000 in October 2020 according to the CDC statistics. As of May 25, 2024, the total deaths related to COVID-19 are at a whopping 1,191,702 (CDC). The rollercoaster ride of the pandemic changed the world as we knew it. How we interact with each other, our opinions on health, and how we share information in a market flooded with deception.
The COVID-19 pandemic was the catalyst for health misinformation. The pandemic caused chaos and confusion. The tough times brought tougher questions with impossible answers. The knowledge sought by our communities was like “nailing jelly to a wall”. Something that seemed impossible due to our lack of details on this new and ever-changing disease. In the early stages of the pandemic, little knowledge of the origin of the disease and how to protect yourself from it was available. The world’s greatest minds worked together to aid the outbreak, but even then, the correct information got lost in the plethora of misinformation. Social media was powered by factors such as politics and extremism. The necessary news got lost in the void of misinformation and divided our society.
(Tampa Bay Times Article: ‘Covid Misinformation is Still Killing Us’, The graphic displays the beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines based on the respondent’s political parties. The misinformation that spread divided America during the election and the difficult time brought by the pandemic. Article)
To vaccine or not vaccine? That is the question. Republican or Democrat, positive or negative, misguided or advised. The factors at play during the pandemic led to the spread of misinformation. That said, the role of social media during this challenging time also did more harm than good. The need for information was of the utmost importance, but so was the sharing of it. Who could share first and how could they reach an audience that would listen? This is still the case today. The presence of COVID-19 has settled though health misinformation is still running rapidly in the timelines and feeds of knowledge-seeking individuals. This epidemic started with the toilet paper crisis but has spread like an infectious disease. There is a need for protection against this new plague, social (media) distancing, misinformation vaccines, or masks. what is the solution to our next pandemic?
Social media is a privilege that we must take seriously. We have an audience at our fingertips. It’s the ability to share stories and memories. It’s a place to like and follow like-minded people. It’s also a platform for hate and violence. Understanding the power you possess with social media should aid you in the usage of it. Uncle Ben said to Spiderman, “ With great power comes great responsibility”. This couldn’t be further from the truth with the superpowers of social media. We as the users of social media have a responsibility to share truths along with our opinions. This is especially vital when it comes to those individuals who have large audiences or credibility. A scholarly article written by Stefano Di Sotto and Marco Viviani covers many ideas that could prevent the spread of misinformation. “methods based on the use of tools designed to allow any user to be able to distinguish information from misinformation even without prior medical knowledge.” (Health Misinformation Detection). This tool can help inform the users that the information they are receiving is opinion rather than fact. As an Instagram user, I have seen this kind of tool being used before.
We aren’t like Spiderman, swinging from building to building honing super strength. Our health is volatile and precious, and therefore should not be left in the hands of untrustworthy people who intend to misguide us. Technology can help us separate truth from inaccurate information aiding us in our health knowledge search.
The goal of this blog is to share how to be informed correctly about health. I introduced the term misinformation in a way to inform the reader about its presence. There isn’t a way to get rid of misinformation, but there is a way to reveal it and avoid it. First, as a distributor of information, you must only share what you know to be truth or fact. Second, as the receiver of information, you must seek credible sources. The checklist below leaves out the most important aspect which is bias, affliction, or opinions. Health shouldn’t be determined by red or blue, but rather credible or not. Health isn’t politically affiliated and therefore should not be disregarded by what side the author is on, but rather their credentials, education, and knowledge. Be the change we so desperately need in the health media. Use this Health Misinformation Checklist to better navigate health-related information reported by the media.
(US Department of Health and Services: ‘Health Misinformation’, This image breaks down the necessary steps in avoiding health misinformation as the receiver and distributor. Article)
Artificial intelligence was created for machines to learn and solve complex tasks created by humans. AI has given the world many benefits like filtering out spam in our email or opening your phone with Face ID, but there have been just as many issues that allow people to do unethical and sometimes illegal things. Deepfakes are one of the AI inventions that were first created for entertainment purposes, yet soon turned sour at the hands of bad individuals.
Deepfake pornography can use deep learning algorithms that are trained to remove clothes from images of women and men and replace them with images of naked body parts. Deepfake porn is a major privacy issue that has currently affected those with high amounts of following including U.S. representative for New York’s 14th congressional district Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She has spoken out against AI porn, as she is one of the many victims of these non-consensual images and videos.
This is increasingly putting “everyday people” at risk of “being targeted by this kind of reputational, sexual violence that is at its core exploitative” said Ocasio-Cortez. There is currently very little that has been done to counteract this new form of sexual abuse. AOC is one of the leading government officials introducing the Defiance Act, which is a piece of legislation that would make the distribution of AI porn of non-consenting individuals illegal, as mentioned in the video below.
Popular musician Taylor Swift is another celebrity who was a victim at the hands of Deepfake AI. Artificially generated images of Swift went viral on Twitter (X) over a month ago and have sparked a discussion of putting together federal legislation that regulates Deepfakes. The posts of Swift received more than 45 million views, 24,000 reposts, and hundreds of thousands of likes in less than 17 hours. This type of abuse needs to be taken more seriously as these victims have to watch their perpetrators get little to no repercussions. The account that posted these explicitly altered pictures of Swift only received a suspension for violating the Twitter (X) community guidelines.
It only takes a few images for someone to use this form of AI technology. It is now easier than ever to make a Deepfake of someone and Congress must find a way to hold those accountable that misuse this software. While the U.S. is still taking its time to get the Defiance Act through the House and Senate, Australia has recently introduced a ban on the sharing of non-consensual Deepfake pornography.
Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus says he expects broad support for the bill. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)
As the days go by, artificial intelligence continues to learn and expand. Legislation has to be able to keep up and prevent this sort of technology from being able to be misused. We, as citizens, must also show our support in fighting back against these sorts of privacy issues and make sure Congress is doing what is right in protecting the people. Deepfake pornography isn’t just an invasion of privacy, but also a form of sexual harassment that can cause deep emotional scaring on any of its victims.
