tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/media-critics-24074/articlesMedia critics – The Conversation2020-07-01T14:19:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1414862020-07-01T14:19:26Z2020-07-01T14:19:26ZThe media often conflates malicious criticism with genuine critique: why it shouldn’t<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344311/original/file-20200626-104538-15dm0fs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">GEORGES GOBET/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>This is an edited extract from <a href="http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/tell-our-story/">Tell Our Story: Multiplying Voices in the News Media</a> by Dale McKinley and Julie Reid.</em></strong></p>
<hr>
<p>“If journalism is a force of immense influence – and I think it is, and should be – then it surely deserves scrutiny.” These are the words of Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of <em>The Guardian</em> in London.</p>
<p>News media sector representatives, journalists and editors often respond to criticism of the press with assertions that the freedom and independence of the news media must be protected at all costs. This is often an almost automatic knee-jerk reaction. For many, the freedom of the press is an infallible sacred cow. This line of argument is sometimes well placed. But at other times it is decidedly manipulative and unhelpful.</p>
<p>There is no question that the world’s investigative news media suffers significant <a href="https://www.indexoncensorship.org/targeting-the-messenger-investigative-journalists-under-extreme-pressure/">strain</a>. This results, in part, from the difficulties of financial sustainability and the crisis of credibility associated with campaigns that set out to delegitimise the media as well as fake news. </p>
<p>But it is also becoming increasingly more dangerous to be a journalist, especially for women. Direct <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/05/threat-journalists-highest-level-10-years-report">threats</a> to journalists are on the increase across the world. This includes assassinations, death threats and intimidation, arrests and detention, or online trolling. </p>
<p>In addition, political and governmental interference in the editorial independence of news outlets, politically connected media ownership and regulatory restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information are still prevalent in many countries. </p>
<p>It’s therefore easy to understand why journalists and media professionals automatically take up defensive positions when confronted with criticism. They feel as though they are under attack. And they are. </p>
<p>But too often genuine critique or evidence-based scrutiny of the news media’s performance by media analysts is unreasonably equated with the tack of the sinister forces who intend to do media workers serious harm. </p>
<p>The two cannot simply be equated. </p>
<h2>Differentiating criticism</h2>
<p>The rantings of a crooked politician who dismisses the news media’s reportage as <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-real-news-on-fake-news-politicians-use-it-to-discredit-media-and-journalists-need-to-fight-back-123907">fake news</a> and calls for draconian media regulations to conceal his own corruption is one thing. The critique and criticisms of media analysts, but more especially of ordinary citizens, whose only request is that the news media works better for them, is an entirely different matter. And ought to be respected. </p>
<p>Threats against the freedom of the press may be serious. But they are not the same thing as genuine and constructive criticism that aims to contribute to a more democratised media sphere, and one that operates to serve its audience better. </p>
<p>These two factors ought to be considered separately. </p>
<p>The loud defence of the journalistic ideal prompts the question: independent from what and from whom? Surely not from the equally important <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327728JMME1504_5">journalistic ideals</a> of fairness, balance and impartiality?</p>
<p>And surely not from those whom the mainstream press professes to ‘serve’: the mediated public, the media audience and ordinary citizens?</p>
<p>The line of argument adopted by news practitioners, infused with connotations that the press ought to remain beyond reproach and untouchable in order to protect media freedom, has often proven unhelpful. This cop-out discoursal manoeuvre is irrational and unjustifiable. It is also an injustice to the billions of people who are media users, many of whom have legitimate grievances with the press. </p>
<p>The freedom of the press is important, and of course it must be protected. But the freedom of everybody else and of ordinary citizens is also important. It too should be taken into consideration.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-journalists-in-south-africa-should-do-some-self-reflection-105056">Why journalists in South Africa should do some self-reflection</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Freedom of expression debates that focus solely on the freedom of expression rights of media workers can be a hindrance when they effectively block conversations about the freedom of expression and representation rights of media users and citizens. The right of freedom of expression of the press is traditionally regarded as universally so precious that any ‘meddling’ in content – despite the inherently problematic nature of that content – is widely regarded as patently wrong. </p>
<p>This simplistic and naive view relegates the notion of media freedom to the role of a beating stick to dissuade anyone from suggesting that news media content needs to improve or change. It immediately disables legitimate debate and introspection on the part of the media sector. The result is that opportunities to explore new ways of creating media content that speaks to, for and about ordinary media users is dismissed. </p>
<p>But contrary to the way in which it has been mythologised, the freedom of the press is not a magic wand that imbues the news media with the status of an untouchable golden calf. The press can be critiqued without its rights being infringed upon, just like anything else.</p>
<p>For these reasons, among others, I have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2017.1337648">argued elsewhere</a> for a substantial revision of the popular way in which we think of the notion of media freedom.</p>
<p>Our definition of media and press freedom needs to change because of the current exclusionary nature of the popular understandings of these terms. Much of the debate on media accountability has centred on the tension that this causes between journalistic autonomy and the public’s need for a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327728JMME1504_5">responsible press</a>.</p>
<p>But, if we were to understand media freedom differently, this relationship may involve less tension and more balance.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/tell-our-story/">Tell Our Story: Multiplying Voices in the News Media</a>, authored by Julie Reid and Dale T McKinley, is published by <a href="http://witspress.co.za">Wits University Press</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141486/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Reid has received funding from the Open Society Foundation for South Africa, and the Women in Research Fund, awarded by the University of South Africa. She is affiliated with the Media Policy and Democracy Project. </span></em></p>The freedom of the press is important, and of course it must be protected. But the freedom of everybody else and of ordinary citizens is also important.Julie Reid, Associate professor, University of South AfricaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1144172019-04-08T10:45:17Z2019-04-08T10:45:17ZFor the ‘political-infotainment-media complex,’ the Mueller investigation was a gold mine<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267877/original/file-20190405-180041-3yot88.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the first year of 'Russiagate' coverage, the combined profits from Fox News, MSNBC and CNN increased by 13 percent.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Lehr/The Conversation</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Almost 60 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY">warned</a> of a new force that fed off and profited from Cold War paranoia: the military-industrial complex.</p>
<p>Over the past couple of years, with Russia reappearing on the airwaves, a new corporate sector profiting from induced anxiety poses just as big a threat. </p>
<p>Let’s call it the political-infotainment-media complex. </p>
<p>On March 22, Robert Mueller <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-report-was-just-delivered-what-happens-now-n985986">delivered his sealed report</a> on the narrowly defined charge of “collusion” to Attorney General William Barr. After 22 months of hype – a period in which it was <a href="http://tyndallreport.com/yearinreview2017/">the most covered story in America</a> – “Russiagate” seemed to end with a whimper. Neither reporters nor the public have read the Mueller report, but that hasn’t stopped <a href="https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million">rampant speculation</a> over what’s in the report, who “lost” and who “won.”</p>
<p>None of this analysis, however, explores the larger structural problems in today’s media environment. Why was this story covered to the extent it was? What does it say about the incentive model in place for corporate media outlets? </p>
<p><a href="https://bellisario.psu.edu/people/individual/matthew-jordan">As a media scholar</a> trying to understand today’s rapidly changing media landscape, I view the Mueller investigation coverage as a direct symptom of a political-infotainment-media complex that has blurred the lines between tabloid soap operas and respectable journalism. </p>
<h2>Infotainment is the hook</h2>
<p>To understand what happened with coverage of the Mueller investigation – and is already happening again in its second act – it’s important to understand the incentives of media networks, old and new. </p>
<p>In his seminal work “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=c3pK97NgNPIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Television:+Technology+and+Cultural+Form&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3h8jIgbfhAhWvs1kKHfI0BxQQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">Television: Technology and Cultural Form</a>,” media critic Raymond Williams explained how, in the early days of television, people would often tune in for a single program and then turn off the TV. </p>
<p>But television networks soon figured out they could maximize advertising revenue if people watched all of a network’s shows, one after the other. TV producers, using commercials and promotions for other shows as a connective glue, strove to create a “flow” from one show to the next.</p>
<p>This cultivation technique is still on full display – we see it when cable news hosts pass the baton from one show to the next. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yJoxohZ6MFg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Rachel Maddow will ‘hand off’ to Lawrence O'Donnell, creating a seamless transition.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But there is also something new going on. Stories like the Mueller investigation transcend individual networks and play out across all outlets, with each adapting the storyline for its particular audience. Sustaining itself beyond a particular news cycle, the investigation has played out like one epic television series – a perfect example of how the political infotainment sector profits from serial stories with long narrative arcs, cliff hangers and periodic revelations. </p>
<p>The more convoluted the story, the more audiences are drawn to preferred networks to confirm their biases. The more outlets tease the “bombshell,” the more it feeds interest. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There were enough ‘bombshells’ in the coverage of the Mueller investigation to wipe out a city.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Video/201901/n_msnbc_radford_mitchell_190113_1920x1080.jpg">MSNBC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Speculation pays off</h2>
<p>For much of the past century, journalism was grounded in <a href="http://www.nupress.northwestern.edu/content/journalism-and-realism">restrained realism</a>, with dispassionate objectivity tied to professional norms.</p>
<p>But many of today’s mainstream media outlets follow something like the profit-minded business model of the original purveyor of “fake news,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-century-ago-progressives-were-the-ones-shouting-fake-news-90614">William Randolph Hearst</a>. Hearst sought to “fournish” a war that he could serialize and monetize, and he famously goaded the American public into war against Spain <a href="https://medium.com/covilian-military-intelligence-group/you-furnish-the-pictures-and-ill-furnish-the-war-67de6c0e1210">with disinformation dressed up as news</a>.</p>
<p>“Don’t be afraid to make a mistake,” <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=n4p0O97RntAC&lpg=PA165&dq=%22don't%20be%20afraid%20to%20make%20a%20mistake%2C%20your%20readers%20might%20like%20it%22&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q=%22don't%20be%20afraid%20to%20make%20a%20mistake,%20your%20readers%20might%20like%20it%22&f=false">Hearst once advised</a>. “Your readers might like it.” </p>
<p>Today’s media business model doesn’t reward patience and scrupulous fact-checking. To do so is to risk missing out on clicks, eyeballs and ad revenue. </p>
<p>Furthermore, today’s outlets can easily profit from misinformation and speculation. </p>
<p>Each mistake – say, a front-page story about <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.d0f403dfba5f">how the Russians hacked America’s electrical grid</a> – might require a retraction or an apology. But during its lifespan, that same mistake can boost profits, ratings and advertising revenue.</p>
<p>Once speculating about news is no longer seen as a problem and becomes a normal part of production, a whole new line of infotainment becomes available. </p>
<p>The Mueller investigation, which featured a tight-lipped investigator, created an enormous vacuum for speculation – for hundreds of round tables and panels featuring lawyers, politicians, political consultants and intelligence officers to theorize over the next twist, the latest clues and possible outcomes. Of course, it didn’t hurt that the story involved espionage, sex, celebrity, corruption and betrayal.</p>
<h2>Trolling for dollars</h2>
<p>With every subpoena, indictment or denial related to Trump’s connection to Russia, the dollars rolled in.</p>
<p>In the first year of Russiagate, total profits from cable news’ big three – Fox News, MSNBC and CNN – <a href="https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/cable-news/">increased by 13 percent</a>. </p>
<p>In 2018, during peak Mueller investigation coverage, MSNBC’s <a href="https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2018-ratings-fox-news-is-the-most-watched-network-on-cable-for-the-third-straight-year/387943">ratings rose by 10 percent during prime-time hours</a>. “The Rachel Maddow Show” rode the serial story to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/02/26/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-is-no-1-and-so-is-sean-hannity/#ce8762d77301">the top ranking among the coveted 25- to 54-year-old demographic</a>. During one six-week period in July and August 2017, Maddow covered the story <a href="http://inthesetimes.com/article/21486/Robert-Mueller-russiagate-Trump-Rachel-Maddow">more than all other news topics combined</a>. </p>
<p>For 22 months, networks like CNN and MSNBC sold hope that a white knight would save the country from a corrupt villain, and that the looming event Twitter users dubbed “#MuellerTime” would lead to catharsis and relief. Ratings soared, so the network had no incentive to change its tune. </p>
<p>Hundreds of subsidiary media outlets emerged to meet the emotional needs of like-minded consumers with new content and repurposed bites that circulated through social media. Views and clicks increased. It didn’t matter whether media producers were agreeing with or inveighing against the Mueller-will-save-us storyline. The incentives guaranteed serial repetition.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, #Resistance Twitter stars like Seth Abramson fed followers open-sourced reports and pulled together various strands <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/resistance-twitter-star-seth-abramson-wants-to-turn-his-threads-into-a-book">to create coherent narratives</a> that he eventually spun into gold with his best-selling book “<a href="https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?lang=en">Proof of Conspiracy</a>.” Fans waited with baited breath for Abramson’s lengthy threads and responded with popcorn-eating gifs as they ate up his analysis in real time.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1079522200657510400"}"></div></p>
<p>Across the spectacular chasm dividing American politics, Fox News has also profited from Russiagate by pushing an epic defense narrative. Beginning each day with “Fox and Friends,” which <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248">Trump often live-tweets to his 59.5 million followers</a>, the network has stoked audience rage with disinformation about villainous “deranged” Democrats besieging their celebrity savior to try to reverse the results of the 2016 election.</p>
<p>A pro-Trump audience has made Sean Hannity’s nightly show <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/02/26/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-is-no-1-and-so-is-sean-hannity/#ce8762d77301">number one in overall viewership</a> across cable news networks. These intensely loyal viewers managed their hopes and fears by scouring the internet to confirm Fox’s narrative, joining <a href="https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/right-wing-twitter/">like-minded media fans</a> to rage against the investigation using hashtags like <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/witchhunt?lang=en">#WitchHunt</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RussiaHoax?src=hash&lang=en">#RussiaHoax</a>.</p>
<h2>Striking digital gold</h2>
<p>Media scholars are only beginning to come to term with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807483">the significance</a> of this new mode of passionate engagement with politics through social media. </p>
<p>One thing is clear: Pro-Trump and pro-Mueller audiences have been a gold mine for social media outlets like Twitter.</p>
<p>In 2017, market analysis revealed that <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/what-is-trump-worth-to-twitter-one-analyst-estimates-2-billion">roughly one-fifth of Twitter’s value was generated by Trump-related traffic</a>. “Russiagate” made Trump’s Twitter finger <a href="http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive">particularly itchy</a> – he has tweeted the words “Witch Hunt” 185 times, “Mueller” 96 times and “collusion” 185 times. </p>
<p>The increased engagement pushed <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/25/twitter-q3-2018/">profits from its digital licensing division to $108 million</a> as the company sold data-driven predictions of users’ future behavior to would-be advertisers and political campaigns. </p>
<p>Perhaps the instant gratification and additional revenue stream of social media has pushed more traditional cable news outlets and newspapers into frothier, melodramatic territory to maximize their market potential.</p>
<p>But the political infotainment media complex doesn’t see speculation and melodrama as a journalistic problem that needs to be fixed; it’s a business model that’s becoming ingrained.</p>
<p>Until there can be a <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/we-will-finally-confront-systemic-market-failure/">public model for producing slower, less sensational and more careful journalism</a> – one that aims to separate truth from speculation and is inoculated from the quick lure of scooping-for-profit – Americans will be vulnerable to its unwarranted influence over political life. </p>
<p>For when the political-infotainment-media complex latches on to a serial story that feeds its profit centers, the stories that need to be covered for our democracy to properly function get left on the cutting room floor.</p>
<p>No matter what surprises or twists next season delivers, we’ll continue to miss the bigger picture.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114417/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Jordan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For the rest of us, it’s another sign of the country’s eroding media and political landscape.Matthew Jordan, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1009412018-09-28T10:36:16Z2018-09-28T10:36:16ZHow the media encourages – and sustains – political warfare<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234140/original/file-20180829-195325-1gxmalk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The quiet consumption of news can sustain a polarized political environment.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/concept-debate-political-argument-symbol-two-463236158?src=OjX0pUNHdS4YHxT1B2KpQA-1-2">Lightspring</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since his inauguration, President Donald Trump has been waging war against the American press by dismissing unfavorable reports as “fake news” and calling the media “the enemy of the American people.”</p>
<p>As a countermeasure, The Washington Post has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/?utm_term=.bc5d5ca153f1">publicly fact-checked every claim that Trump has labeled as fake</a>. In August, The Boston Globe <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/10/newspaper-calls-for-war-words-against-trump-media-attacks/DG5ijE6VSuWCEsvi8lKHBL/story.html">coordinated editorials</a> from newspapers across the nation to push back against Trump’s attacks on the press. The Associated Press <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/10/newspaper-calls-for-war-words-against-trump-media-attacks/DG5ijE6VSuWCEsvi8lKHBL/story.html">characterized this effort</a> as the declaration of a “war of words” against Trump. </p>
<p>News organizations might frame themselves as the besieged party in this “war.” But what if they’re as much to blame as the president in this back-and-forth? And what if readers are to blame as well?</p>
<p>In an unpublished manuscript titled “<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520298125/the-war-of-words">The War of Words</a>,” the late rhetorical theorist and cultural critic Kenneth Burke cast the media as agents of political warfare. In 2012, we found this manuscript in Burke’s papers and, after working closely with Burke’s family and the University of California Press, it will be published in October 2018. </p>
<p>In “The War of Words,” Burke urges readers to recognize the role they also play in sustaining polarization. He points to how seemingly innocuous features in a news story can actually compromise values readers might hold, whether it’s debating the issues further, finding points of consensus, and, ideally, avoiding war.</p>
<h2>A book born out of the Cold War</h2>
<p>In 1939 – just before Adolf Hitler invaded Poland – Burke wrote an influential essay, “<a href="http://www.csun.edu/%7Ehfspc002/442/txt/burke.pdf">The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle,’</a>” in which he outlined how Hitler had weaponized language to foment antipathy, scapegoat Jews and unite Germans against a common enemy.</p>
<p>After World War II ended and America’s leaders turned their attention to the Soviet Union, Burke saw some parallels to Hitler in the way language was being weaponized in the U.S. </p>
<p>He worried that the U.S. might remain on a permanent wartime footing and that a drumbeat of oppositional rhetoric directed at the Soviet Union was making the nation susceptible to slipping into yet another war.</p>
<p>Tormented by this possibility, he published two books, “<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520015449/a-grammar-of-motives">A Grammar of Motives</a>” and “<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520015463/a-rhetoric-of-motives">A Rhetoric of Motives</a>,” in which he sought to to inoculate Americans from the sort of political speech that, in his view, could lead to a nuclear holocaust.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238382/original/file-20180927-48653-8jowuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238382/original/file-20180927-48653-8jowuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238382/original/file-20180927-48653-8jowuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238382/original/file-20180927-48653-8jowuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238382/original/file-20180927-48653-8jowuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=953&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238382/original/file-20180927-48653-8jowuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=953&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238382/original/file-20180927-48653-8jowuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=953&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kenneth Burke.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Kenneth_Burke.jpg">Oscar White</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>“The War of Words” was originally supposed to be part of “A Rhetoric of Motives.” But at the last minute, Burke decided to set it aside and publish it later. Unfortunately, he never ended up publishing it before his death in 1993.</p>
<p>The thesis of “The War of Words” is simple and, in our view, holds up today: Political warfare is ubiquitous, unrelenting and inevitable. News coverage and commentary are frequently biased, whether journalists and readers are aware of it or not. And all media coverage, therefore, demands careful scrutiny. </p>
<p>To Burke, you don’t have to launch social media missives in order to participate in sustaining a polarized political environment. </p>
<p>Instead, the quiet consumption of news reporting is enough to do the trick.</p>
<h2>Pick a side</h2>
<p>Most people might think that the content of media coverage is the most persuasive component. They assume what gets reported matters more than how it gets reported. </p>
<p>But according to “The War of Words,” this assumption is backwards: An argument’s form is often its most persuasive element.</p>
<p>Burke takes pains to catalog the various forms that news writers use in their work and calls them “rhetorical devices.” </p>
<p>One device he calls “headline thinking,” which refers to how an article’s headline can establish the tone and frame of the issue being discussed. </p>
<p>Take, for example, an Aug. 21 article The New York Times ran about how Michael Cohen’s indictment might affect the 2018 midterms. The headline read: “<a href="http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/national/with-cohen-implicating-trump-a-presidencys-fate-rests-with-congress-20180822">With Cohen Implicating Trump, a Presidency’s Fate Rests With Congress</a>.” </p>
<p>The next day, the Times ran another article on the same topic with the following headline: “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/trump-cohen-impeachment.html">Republicans Urge Embattled Incumbents to Speak Out on Trump</a>.” </p>
<p>Both headlines seek to assail the Republican Party. The first implies that the Republican Party, because it holds a majority in Congress, is responsible for upholding justice – and if they don’t indict Trump, they’re clearly protecting him to preserve their political power. </p>
<p>The second headline might seem less malicious than the first. But think about the underlying assumption: Republicans are only urging “embattled” elected officials to speak out against Trump. </p>
<p>The directive, therefore, isn’t born out of political principle. Rather, it’s being made because the party needs to preserve its majority and protect vulnerable incumbents. The unstated claim in this headline is that the Republican Party exhibits political virtue only when it’s needed to quell threats to its power.</p>
<p>If you side with The New York Times, you may be heartened by its efforts to position the Republican Party as craven in its lust for power. If you side with the Republican Party, you are probably disgusted with the paper for claiming that its representatives lack moral virtue. </p>
<p>Either way, the line is drawn: The New York Times is on one side, and the Republican Congress is on the other.</p>
<h2>A rhetorical ‘call to arms’</h2>
<p>Another device Burke explores is one that he calls “yielding aggressively,” which involves accepting criticism in order to leverage it to one’s own benefit. </p>
<p>We see this at play in an <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/22/trump-likely-safe-after-cohen-guilty-plea-but-mueller-report-will-be-fodder-for-foes.html">op-ed piece published on Fox News</a> on Aug. 22, 2018. The writer, John Fund, concluded that Michael Cohen’s guilty plea will “likely” not lead to an indictment of President Trump. </p>
<p>To support his argument, he cites Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-cohen-plea-agreement-possible-meanings-campaign-finance-counts">who has argued</a> that the campaign finance violations aren’t very significant but are instead being used as a political cudgel. </p>
<p>Fund admits that Cohen’s guilty plea will hurt Trump and make things tougher for his supporters, requiring them “to do a lot of heavy lifting when they come to his defense.” Fund’s editorial also admits to minor lapses in Trump’s judgment – particularly in hiring Cohen, Manafort and Omarosa Manigault Newman. It thus yielded to popular criticisms of Trump. </p>
<p>But this admission is not a call for accountability; it is a call to arms. Fund ultimately argues that if Trump is indicted, it will not be because he is guilty of violating a serious law. It will be because his opponents seek to vanquish him. </p>
<p>Indictment or not, Fund seems to be saying, Trump supporters should be ready for a ferocious political fight come 2020.</p>
<p>Again, the lines are drawn.</p>
<h2>How to survive the ‘war of words’</h2>
<p>Burke <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520015463/a-rhetoric-of-motives">once wrote</a> about how rhetorical devices like those explored above can sustain division and polarization. </p>
<p>“Imagine a passage built about a set of oppositions (‘we do this, but they on the other hand do that; we stay here, but they go there; we look up, but they look down,’ etc.),” he wrote. “Once you grasp the trend of the form, [you see that] it invites participation regardless of the subject matter … you will find yourself swinging along with the succession of antitheses, even though you may not agree with the proposition that is being presented in this form.” </p>
<p>Burke calls this phenomenon “collaborative expectancy” – collaborative because it encourages us to swing along together, and “expectancy” because of the predictability of each side’s argument. </p>
<p>This predictability encourages readers to embrace an argument without considering whether we find it persuasive. They simply sit on one of two opposing sides and nod along. </p>
<p>According to Burke, if you passively consume the news, swinging along with headlines as the midterms unfold, political divisions will likely be further cemented.</p>
<p>However if you become aware of how the media reports you’re consuming seek to subtly position and influence you, you’ll likely seek out more sources and become more deliberative. You might notice what’s missing from a debate, and what really might be motivating the outlet.</p>
<p>To avoid getting sucked into a dynamic of two opposing, gridlocked forces, it’s important for all readers to make their consciousness a matter of conscience.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kyle Jensen received funding from the University of North Texas and the Eberly Family Special Collections Library at Penn State University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jack Selzer received funding from the New York Public Library to do research related to Kenneth Burke's "The War of Words." He was also supported by the Paterno Family Liberal Arts Professorship endowment. </span></em></p>In Kenneth Burke’s ‘The War of Words,’ the late rhetorical theorist picks apart the little ways news articles can subtly influence readers – and harden divisions.Kyle Jensen, Associate Professor of English, University of North TexasJack Selzer, Paterno Family Liberal Arts Professor of Literature, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/784422017-06-01T01:55:18Z2017-06-01T01:55:18ZMainstream media outlets are dropping the ball with terrorism coverage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171670/original/file-20170531-25658-1975cei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Breathless reporting accompanies each attack, with little time spent addressing the underlying causes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Lehr/The Conversation via Google</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>News coverage of the Manchester terrorist attack was sadly familiar: cellphone videos of screaming victims; details of first responders’ hectic efforts; “Was it terrorism?” guesswork; speculation about the perpetrator. In this case, the horror was amplified by so many of the killed and wounded being young people.</p>
<p>Since the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, covering the type of violence inspired by al-Qaeda or the Islamic State (IS) has become a staple of the news media’s repertoire. Collectively, this reporting increases the public’s sense of vulnerability: An evil is out there, unpredictable and ferocious, sure to strike again.</p>
<p>But what’s behind that evil? When I watch or read mainstream news coverage of the attacks, they tend to treat them as distinct events, much like a train wreck or bank robbery. </p>
<p>As I worked on my forthcoming book, “As Terrorism Evolves: Media, Religion, and Governance,” it became clear that for all the breathless headlines about IS-inspired terror attacks, many know little about the complexities of terrorism and Islam. Who are these people who murder so wantonly? Why do they do it? And, most importantly, how might such attacks be stopped?</p>
<p>Answering such questions requires daily news coverage that consists of more than depictions of scattered chaos. A holistic approach to reporting about terrorism might better explain this phenomenon that’s reshaping our lives, much as the Cold War did 50 years ago.</p>
<h2>A journalistic void</h2>
<p>Western reporting about IS-inspired terrorist attacks almost always, explicitly or implicitly, notes a connection to Islam. But it often ends there. <a href="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/12/religious-lit-symposium/">Many journalists shy away from religious topics</a>, and this creates a vacuum of public knowledge that terrorists and anti-Muslim activists and politicians can exploit. </p>
<p>The result? A religion of 1.6 billion people is being defined in public discourse by the acts of the few who spill blood in a Manchester arena or a Baghdad marketplace. And because there is such limited understanding of Islam in the non-Muslim world – <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2010/08/24/public-remains-conflicted-over-islam/">55 percent</a> of Americans say they know little or nothing at all about Islam – many news consumers are prone to accept the idea that “Islam-equals-terrorism.” <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/">Results of a 2015 Pew Research Center study</a> underscored the pervasiveness of stereotypes and the tensions underlying them, with significant numbers of Americans viewing Muslims as anti-American and violent. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/13/iowa-republican-party-criticizes-steve-king-for-controversial-muslim-tweet/">When political figures denounce Muslims</a>, or when there is anti-Muslim backlash following an attack, <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/05/24/reactions-to-manchester-bombing-show-how-anti-muslim-bigots-are-useful-idiots-for-isis/">terrorist organizations chalk up a victory</a>. Because some Muslims will inevitably see their religion as being under siege, they become susceptible to recruitment by the likes of al-Qaida and IS, who portray themselves as defenders of the religion.</p>
<p>Following terror attacks, anti-extremism responses from Muslim communities might receive some coverage. For example, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49nOBFv508&feature=youtu.be">an antiterrorism message</a> produced in Kuwait and broadcast soon after the Manchester bombing quickly went viral on social media and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/world/middleeast/zain-ad-ramadan-terrorism.html">received coverage from Western news media</a>.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, Islam usually disappears from the news until the next tragedy, even though approximately <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/31/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/">80 percent of Muslims</a> live outside the Arab world in countries of rising importance such as Indonesia, Pakistan and Nigeria. The global political clout of Islam is, in some ways, like that of Catholicism centuries ago. If the role of Islam in world affairs were to receive continuing coverage, perhaps news consumers would realize that there is far more to Islam than violence. And if antipathy toward Islam were to diminish, terrorists would lose a recruiting tool.</p>
<h2>Honestly addressing the threat</h2>
<p>That said, this coverage should also address state-sponsored extremism, most notably Saudi Arabia’s <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html">well-funded promotion of Wahabbist Muslim ideology</a>. This fundamentalist doctrine is intrinsically separatist and lends itself to militancy. <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism">It provides a purported theological rationale</a> for treating moderate Muslims – as well as non-Muslims – as enemies. </p>
<p>While Western politicians are restrained in dealing with this for reasons related to oil and regional geopolitics, the news media could play a more forceful role in describing how even purported allies help terrorism take root.</p>
<p>Journalists could also more thoroughly examine the sophistication of terrorist operations. Islamic State, for example, has deftly used social media to inspire terrorist attackers, even those with whom it has no direct contact. </p>
<p>The perpetrators of the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, California had received no training or orders from Islamic State, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/us/san-bernardino-shooting/">but they pledged allegiance to IS</a> and launched the attack based on what they had gleaned from IS’ online content.</p>
<p>Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaida, recognized the power of media <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/03/isis-winning-social-media-war-heres-beat/">when he wrote</a>, back in 2004, that “more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media…we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma [Muslim people].” </p>
<p><a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/03/isis-winning-social-media-war-heres-beat/">IS has used social media</a> to spread its message, recruit followers, train fighters and raise funds. Governments and nongovernmental groups <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/11/19/fight-against-isis-reveals-power-of-social-media/">have recently become more adept at pushing back against this</a> – the U.S. State Department has released over 300 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcQxGG6y-MY">YouTube videos</a> to counter the messaging of extremist groups – but the news media still tend to understate the organizational and military capabilities of terrorist groups.</p>
<p>Consider the long-running story of efforts to liberate Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, which Islamic State has held since 2014. Iraqi and American sources provide vaguely optimistic updates, which are duly reported. But this battle has been underway since October 2016. Despite the U.S.-backed onslaught, parts of Mosul remain under Islamic State control. What does this portend for future Islamic State military efforts and its far-ranging terrorist attacks? Relying on daily combat bulletins obscures the long-term realities that journalists should be analyzing.</p>
<p>More broadly, counterterrorism efforts by the United States and other countries deserve greater scrutiny. The public needs to know what’s working and what isn’t. Defeating terrorism will require a mix of hard and soft power. Shutting down terrorists’ recruiting pipelines is crucial. That requires innovative programs to reach those who are vulnerable to extremist appeals. </p>
<p>Terrorism is a pervasive enough part of our lives to merit more consistent news coverage, and journalists on the terrorism beat must develop expertise about this multidimensional topic. (Among the best are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/joby-warrick/?utm_term=.9e1b163e07c6">Joby Warrick</a> of The Washington Post and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/by/rukmini-callimachi">Rukmini Callimachi</a> of The New York Times.) But overall, terrorism-related journalism remains episodic and simplistic.</p>
<p>Since the rude awakening of 9/11, journalism, in my view, hasn’t kept pace with the bloody growth of terrorism. It needs to catch up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Seib does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Terrorist attacks are more than ‘breaking news,’ but the media aren’t taking a comprehensive approach to exploring the underlying issues.Philip Seib, Professor of Journalism and Public Diplomacy, USC Annenberg School for Communication and JournalismLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/696022016-12-06T02:25:14Z2016-12-06T02:25:14ZUnbelievable news? Read it again and you might think it’s true<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147988/original/image-20161129-17069-14gb0wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/en/donald-trump-politician-america-1547274/">tiburi/pixabay</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the weeks since the U.S. election, concerns have been raised about the prominence and popularity of false news stories spread on platforms such as Facebook. A BuzzFeed analysis found that the top 20 false election stories generated more shares, likes, reactions and comments than the top 20 election stories from major news organizations in the months immediately preceding the election. For example, the fake article “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President, Releases Statement” was <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook">engaged with 960,000 times in the three months prior to the election</a>.</p>
<p>Facebook has discounted the analysis, saying that these top stories are only a tiny fraction of the content people are exposed to on the site. In fact, Facebook CEO <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/technology/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-fake-news/">Mark Zuckerberg has said</a>, “Personally I think the idea that fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of the content, influenced the election in any way – I think is a pretty crazy idea.” However, psychological science suggests that exposure to false news would have an impact on people’s opinions and beliefs. It may not have changed the outcome of the election, but false news stories almost definitely affected people’s opinions of the candidates. </p>
<p>Psychological research, including my own, shows that repeated exposure to false information can change people’s beliefs that is it true. This phenomenon is called the “illusory truth effect.”</p>
<p>This effect happens to us all – <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098">including people who know the truth</a>. Our research suggests that even people who knew Pope Francis made no presidential endorsement would be susceptible to believing a “Pope endorses Trump” headline when they had seen it multiple times.</p>
<h2>Repetition leads to belief</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147975/original/image-20161129-16998-73ui8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147975/original/image-20161129-16998-73ui8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147975/original/image-20161129-16998-73ui8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147975/original/image-20161129-16998-73ui8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147975/original/image-20161129-16998-73ui8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147975/original/image-20161129-16998-73ui8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147975/original/image-20161129-16998-73ui8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147975/original/image-20161129-16998-73ui8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Lewis_Carroll_-_Henry_Holiday_-_Hunting_of_the_Snark_-_Plate_1.jpg">Henry Holiday illustration accompanying 'The Hunting of the Snark' by Lewis Carroll, 1931.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>People think that statements they have heard twice are more true than those they have encountered only once. That is, simply repeating false information makes it seem more true. </p>
<p>In a typical study, participants read a series of true statements (“French horn players get cash bonuses to stay in the U.S. Army”) and false ones (“Zachary Taylor was the first president to die in office”) and rate how interesting they find each sentence. Then, they are presented with a number of statements and asked to rate how true each one is. This second round includes both the statements from the first round and entirely new statements, both true and false. The outcome: Participants reliably rate the repeated statements as being <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251">more true than the new statements</a>.</p>
<p>In a recent study, I and other researchers found that this effect is not limited to obscure or unknown statements, like those about French horn players and Zachary Taylor. Repetition can also bolster belief in statements that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098">contradict participants’ prior knowledge</a>. </p>
<p>For example, even among people who can identify the skirt that Scottish men wear as a kilt, the statement “A sari is the skirt that Scottish men wear” is rated as more true when it is read twice versus only once. On a six-point scale, the participants’ truth ratings increased by half a point when the known falsehoods were repeated. The statements were still rated as false, but participants were much less certain, rating the statements as “possibly false” rather than closer to “probably false.” </p>
<p>This means that having relevant prior knowledge does not protect people from the illusory truth effect. Repeated information feels more true, even if it goes against what you already know.</p>
<h2>Even debunking could make things worse</h2>
<p>Facebook is looking at ways to combat fake news on the site, but some of the proposed solutions are unlikely to fix the problem. According to a Facebook post by Zuckerberg, the site is considering labeling stories that have been flagged as false <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061">with a warning message</a>. While this is a commonsense suggestion, and may help to reduce the sharing of false stories, psychological research suggests that it will do little to prevent people from believing that the articles are true.</p>
<p>People tend to remember false information, but forget that it was labeled as false. A 2011 study gave participants statements from sources described as either “reliable” or “unreliable.” Two weeks later, the participants were asked to rate the truth of several statements – the reliable and unreliable statements from before, and new statements as well. They tended to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.018">rate the repeated statements as more true</a>, even if they were originally labeled as unreliable.</p>
<p>This can also apply to reporting about false public statements. Even a debunking-focused headline like CNN’s “<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-fraud-popular-vote/">Trump falsely claims ‘millions of people who voted illegally’ cost him popular vote</a>” can reinforce the falsehood Trump was spreading.</p>
<h2>Correcting after the fact doesn’t help much</h2>
<p>When media outlets publish articles that contain factual errors – or that make assertions that are later proved false – they print corrections or retractions. But when people have strong preconceptions, after-the-fact updates often have no effect on their beliefs, even when they remember the information has been retracted. </p>
<p>In the early days of the second Iraq war, many news events were initially presented as true and then retracted. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/03/07/1316359.htm">Examples included allegations</a> that Iraqis captured U.S. and allied soldiers as prisoners of war and then executed them, in violation of the Geneva Conventions. </p>
<p>In 2005, cognitive psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky gave Americans and Germans <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00802.x">statements about various news events during the war</a>. Some of the statements were true; others were reported as true, but later retracted; still others were false – though those labels were not provided to the study participants.</p>
<p>The participants were then asked to rate whether they remembered the news event, whether they thought it was true or false, and whether the information had been retracted after its initial publication. Participants were also asked how much they agreed with official statements about the causes of the Iraq war.</p>
<p>Americans who remembered reports that had been retracted, and who remembered the retractions, still rated those items just as true as accurate reports that had not been retracted. German participants rated the retracted events as less true. In responding to other questions in the study, the Americans had shown themselves to be less suspicious of the official justifications for the war than the Germans were.</p>
<p>The researchers concluded that the Germans’ suspicions made them more likely to adjust their beliefs when the information was retracted. Americans, more likely to believe the war was justified, were also less likely to change their beliefs as new information arrived.</p>
<p>The study suggests that Clinton supporters, who tend to be suspicious of positive information about Trump, may remember that the pope-endorsement story was false, and discount the information. Trump supporters, by contrast, would be left with a more positive opinion of Trump, even if they remembered that the story was false.</p>
<p>There is no easy solution to the problem of fake news. But it’s clear that it is a problem: Exposure to false news stories can affect readers’ beliefs and opinions. Simply <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061">labeling the information as false</a> is unlikely to reduce this effect. </p>
<p>A true solution would somehow limit the spread of these fake stories, preventing people from seeing them in the first place. A first step that each of us can take is to check our sources and not share unreliable articles on social media, even if they affirm our beliefs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69602/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Fazio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People who read false news items come to believe them – even if they know better. It doesn’t help to know the source is unreliable or the report has been debunked.Lisa Fazio, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/530702016-01-19T04:05:35Z2016-01-19T04:05:35ZThe Trevor Noah phenomenon: young, black South Africans are standing up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108403/original/image-20160118-31834-1ay1hac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Jon Stewart with Trevor Noah at the 67th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards Governors Ball in Los Angeles, California recently. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Mario Anzuoni</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last year was a tumultuous one for South Africa and the country faces an uncertain 2016. This prevailing mood does not bode well for South African society. But there are undercurrents that suggest otherwise – budding signs of a deepening democracy. One of these is the <a href="http://www.eonline.com/news/604035/trevor-noah-new-daily-show-contributor-5-things-to-know-about-the-south-african-comedian">Trevor Noah</a> comedic phenomenon.</p>
<p>Noah is a comic export to the American global television market as successor to the famous satiric host, Jon Stewart, on the highly rated <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/exit-stage-left">Daily Show</a>. The show draws its comedy and satirical content from trending political news, cutting-edge debates and interviews with top politicians and influencers. Noah’s acclaimed hosting debut had <a href="http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/trevor-noah-daily-show-premiere-draws-3-5-million-1201604218/">3.471 million viewers</a>. In rising through the comedy ranks he has drawn on material from his turbulent childhood and ethnic experiences.</p>
<p>Noah has cracked the nod with his peers, a cosmopolitan audience and influential <a href="http://www.thewrap.com/trevor-noah-first-month-daily-show-comedy-central-michele-ganeless-digital-tv-ratings-twitter/">media critics</a>. This is no mean feat for a homegrown 31-year-old of mixed race.</p>
<p>The Noah phenomenon speaks to an influential comedic revolution that is happening in South Africa.</p>
<h2>Humour as social commentary and critique</h2>
<p>Late-night talk shows and <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/2015/12/27/South-Africa-laughs-at-race-as-comedy-provides-pain-relief">comedy clubs</a> are increasing in popularity in South Africa. They involve a montage of humorous skits, jokes and amusing anecdotes often underpinned by incisive, satirical commentary. This comedic revolution is dominated by a growing number of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/04/south-africa-new-breed-comedians">young, black comedians</a>. Like their peers worldwide, they are pushing the boundaries on controversial issues.</p>
<p>They search for material drawing from the messy business of “real” life, wrestling with topics relating to racism, sexism, prejudice, abuse and religiosity. Public and even iconic figures are considered fair game and there are no sacred cows.</p>
<p>Comedians are not idealists. But in the single-minded pursuit of their agenda – laughter – they inadvertently provide the sociopolitical <a href="http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/174-when-the-truth-hurts-tell-a-joke-why-america-needs-its-comedians">critique</a> that has the potential to activate transformation in society.</p>
<p>Satirical humour may be provocative, shocking and even offensive but it is considered fundamental in a free society. <a href="https://www.msu.edu/%7Ejdowell/ziv.html">Charlie Chaplin</a> observed that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the function of comedy is to sharpen our sensitivity to the perversions of justice within the society in which we live.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Comedic culture is <a href="http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/174-when-the-truth-hurts-tell-a-joke-why-america-needs-its-comedians">deeply rooted</a> in human history. Travelling minstrels and the court jester – forerunners of the stand-up comic – held up a satirical mirror to the ills of their medieval societies. </p>
<p>Satire, a specific genre of humour that goes deeper than ordinary humour, often brutally exposes the absurdity of the human condition, society’s hypocrisies and abuses of the polity. By stimulating critical awareness the satirist-comic comes to play the unintended role of activist and change agent in society.</p>
<h2>Humour as therapy and a force for reconciliation</h2>
<p>In an increasingly complex, high risk and conflict intense world there is much cause for anxiety and uncertainty. For South Africa, a post-conflict society grappling with issues of <a href="http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/its-just-the-facts-penny-sparrow-breaks-her-silence-20160104">race</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-south-africa-the-most-unequal-society-in-the-world-48334">inequality</a> and a <a href="http://www.bdlive.co.za/economy/2015/10/06/sa-growth-too-low-to-cut-poverty-says-world-bank">weakening economy</a>, these factors are pronounced.</p>
<p>The country’s stand-up comedians and satirical artists offer the opportunity to laugh, providing a <a href="http://medhum.med.nyu.edu/view/12852">Freudian catharsis</a> – a release of emotional stress and tension – with <a href="http://scar.gmu.edu/sites/default/files/Zelizer%20article.pdf">therapeutic benefits</a>. This comic release is beneficial in activating coping mechanisms to deal with the anxiety and insecurity of deeply divided societies.</p>
<p>Research has shown that humour can be used as a form of resistance and protest in times of intense conflict. Researcher <a href="http://scar.gmu.edu/sites/default/files/Zelizer%20article.pdf">Don Nilsen</a> describes how Jews in Nazi concentration camps used humour to take some control of their own lives.</p>
<p>Humorous strategies are also powerful in exposing <a href="http://animatingdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Humor%20Trend%20Paper.pdf">social injustice</a>, subverting stereotypes and challenging assumptions. And the constructive role of humour to facilitate dialogue, nonviolent resistance and reconciliation is increasingly being <a href="http://www.academia.edu/7623880/Susan_Carew_Peace_and_Humour_Essay_How_Effective_is_Laughter_and_Comedy_in_Creating_an_Atmosphere_of_Positive_Peace">documented</a>.</p>
<h2>Humour as a social corrective</h2>
<p>The degree to which free expression a society allows its artists is seen as a significant indicator of its democratic character and maturity. As hallmarks of a <a href="https://oatd.org/oatd/record?record=oai%5C%3Aetda.libraries.psu.edu%5C%2Foai%5C%2F11542">robust democracy</a>, satire and humour have special import in post-colonial and post-conflict societies.</p>
<p>Governments and rulers throughout history have tried to control the space occupied by satirists and cartoonists who shine a satirical light on their shortcomings. They perceive this as a threat to their power and position as well as inviting unwanted public scrutiny. </p>
<p>Developing economies often struggle with freedom of expression, especially when regime abuses and dominant discourses are challenged. The current South African government is no exception. President <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/19/satire-zuma-johannesburg-mbeki">Jacob Zuma</a> has provided a wealth of material for comedians, artists and cartoonists such as <a href="http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/media/2012/10/29/news-analysis-politics-at-work-in-zuma-zapiro-case">Zapiro</a>. </p>
<p>More recently, however, the governing African National Congress appears to be taking an <a href="http://inside-politics.org/2012/05/17/the-painting-of-president-zuma/">adversarial stance</a> against artistic expression. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D_T58eBnvMA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>A revolution of comic proportions</h2>
<p>Young, black, stand-up comedians such as Tumi Morake, Loyisa Gola, David Kau, Kagiso Lediga, Tats Nkonzo and many others are performing increasingly to black, middle-class audiences. Kau jokes that he no longer has to rely on white patronage because black South Africans have money and attend his shows.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/06/5-facts-daily-show/">Research</a> in the US shows that comedic talk show hosts are prominent sources of political information. This is especially true among 30-35-year-olds. In 2007, the Pew Research Centre <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html?_r=0">listed Stewart</a> as the fourth-most-trusted journalist in America.</p>
<p>Satirists can certainly help South Africa deal with building a vibrant democracy. Satirical comedy provides an alternative learning platform by offering competing narratives, subverting stereotypes and deconstructing dominant discourses.</p>
<p>As with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-african-students-and-universities-may-now-be-trapped-in-a-cycle-of-conflict-49687">#FeesMustFall</a> movement it is fitting that the “comic revolution” is driven by young South Africans who are debunking myths and challenging political correctness with a sense of humour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53070/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lyn Snodgrass does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Trevor Noah phenomenon speaks to an influential comedic revolution that is happening in South Africa. Its comics operate in an increasingly complex, high-risk and conflict-intense society.Lyn Snodgrass, Associate Professor and Head of Department of Political and Conflict Studies, Nelson Mandela UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.