tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/editorial-30513/articleseditorial – The Conversation2020-06-22T12:17:38Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1409012020-06-22T12:17:38Z2020-06-22T12:17:38ZJournalists believe news and opinion are separate, but readers can’t tell the difference<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342803/original/file-20200618-41238-19j01o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Readers don't always know how to distinguish fact from opinion.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/gatehouse-media-owned-palm-beach-post-and-the-gannett-co-news-photo/1166289246?adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned recently after the paper published <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html">a controversial opinion essay</a> by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton that advocated using the military to put down protests. </p>
<p>The essay sparked outrage among the public as well as among younger reporters at the paper. Many of those staffers participated in <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/06/this-puts-black-people-in-danger-new-york-times-staffers-band-together-to-protest-tom-cottons-anti-protest-editorial/">a social media campaign</a> aimed at the paper’s leadership, asking for factual corrections and an editor’s note explaining what was wrong with the essay.</p>
<p>Eventually, the staff uprising forced <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/james-bennet-resigns-nytimes-op-ed.html">Bennet’s departure</a>. </p>
<p>Cotton’s column was published on the opinion pages – not the news pages. But that’s a distinction often lost on the public, whose criticisms during the recent incident were often directed <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonFarmer15/status/1269729759946330113?s=20">at the paper as a whole</a>, including its news coverage. All of which raises a longstanding question: What’s the difference between the news and opinion side of a news organization? </p>
<p>It is a tenet of American journalism that reporters working for the news sections of newspapers remain entirely independent of the opinion sections. But the <a href="https://newslit.org/get-smart/did-you-know-news-opinion/">divide between news and opinion is not as clear to many readers</a> as journalists believe that it is. </p>
<p>And because American news consumers have become accustomed to the ideal of objectivity in news, the idea that opinions bleed into the news report potentially leads readers to suspect that reporters have a political agenda, which damages their credibility, and that of their news organizations.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The op-ed column by Sen. Tom Cotton.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html">New York Times screenshot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How news and opinion grew apart</h2>
<p>Long before newspapers became institutions for collecting and distributing news, they were instruments for the personal expression of individuals – their owners. There was little thought given to whether or not opinion and fact were intermingled. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/pennsylvania-gazette/#:%7E:text=Pennsylvania%20Gazette,Pennsylvania%20Gazette%20from%20Samuel%20Keimer.">Benjamin Franklin ran the Pennsylvania Gazette</a> from 1729 to 1748 as a vehicle for his own political and scientific ideas and even just his day-to-day observations. The <a href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030483/">Gazette of the United States</a>, first published in 1789, was the most prominent Federalist paper of its time and was funded in part by Alexander Hamilton, whose letters and essays it published anonymously.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Front page of the inaugural issue of the Gazette of the United States, from April 15, 1789.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030483/1789-04-15/ed-1/seq-1/">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the early 19th century, newspapers were <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/07/16/from-tom-paine-to-glenn-greenwald-we-need-partisan-journalism/">often nakedly partisan</a>, since many of them were funded by <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/party-press-era">political parties</a>. </p>
<p>Over the course of the 19th century, though, newspapers began to seek a popular audience. As they grew in circulation, some began to emphasize their independence from faction. </p>
<p>Coupled with the rise of journalism schools and press organizations, this independence enshrined “fact” and “truth” as what scholar Barbie Zelizer calls <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1479142042000180953">“God-terms” of journalism</a> by the early 20th century.</p>
<p>Newspaper owners never wanted to give up their influence on public opinion, however. As news became the main product of the newspaper, publishers established editorial pages, where they could continue to endorse their favorite politicians or push for pet causes. </p>
<p>These pages are <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/about-the-times-editorial-board">typically run by editorial boards</a>, which are staffs of writers, often with individual areas of expertise (economics or foreign policy or, in smaller papers, state politics), who draft editorial essays. They are then voted on by the board, which usually includes the publisher. They’re then published, usually with no author attribution, as the official opinions of the newspaper. There are variations on this process: Often the editorial board will decide on topics and the paper’s opinion before these writers get to work on their drafts.</p>
<p>James Bennet, The New York Times opinion editor who resigned, acknowledged in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/reader-center/editorial-board-explainer.html">an article on the paper’s website</a> that was published in January 2020, months before the Cotton essay, that “the role of the editorial board can be confusing, particularly to readers who don’t know The Times well.”</p>
<p>Through most the 20th century, newspapers reassured their readers and their reporters that there was a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3118032">“wall” between the news and opinion sides</a> of their operations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unbiased journalism is a relatively new phenomenon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-walk-by-the-front-of-the-new-york-times-building-on-news-photo/1027689402?adppopup=true">Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Publishers relied on this idea of separation to insist that their news reporting was fair and independent, and they believed that readers understood that separation.</p>
<p>This is a particularly American way of operating. Readers in <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2015/04/28/our-partisan-press-does-it-matter-to-journalism-or-politics/">other countries</a> usually expect their newspapers to have a point of view, representing a particular party or ideology.</p>
<h2>The creation of the op-ed page</h2>
<p>One way that newspapers found to allow a greater range of opinion in its pages was to create an op-ed page, which publishes opinions by individuals, not those of the editorial board. As journalism historian <a href="https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=cmj_facpub">Michael Socolow recounts</a>, John Oakes, the editorial page editor of The New York Times in 1970, created the first op-ed page because, he felt, “a newspaper most effectively fulfills its social and civic responsibilities by challenging authority, acting independently, and inviting dissent.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.seattletimescompany.com/editorial/howtoread.htm">“Op-ed” is short for “opposite the editorial page,”</a> not “opinion and editorial” or opinions that are opposite from those of the editorial page. Literally, the name comes from the fact that it was located across from – opposite – the editorial page in the print newspaper.</p>
<p>The op-ed page of a print newspaper typically includes the newspaper’s opinion columnists. These are employees of the paper who write regularly. The paper also usually publishes a selection of opinion pieces from outside writers. Newspapers around the country emulated the Times after the op-ed page debuted.</p>
<h2>Online opinions, changing norms and blurred lines</h2>
<p>With the expansion of opinion pages online, the Times was <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-york-times-publisher-ag-sulzberger-laments-loss-of-a-talent-like-james-bennet">publishing 120 opinion pieces a week</a> at the time of James Bennet’s resignation.</p>
<p>While the move online allows The New York Times op-ed page to vastly increase its output, it also creates a problem: Opinion stories <a href="https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2017/news-or-opinion-online-its-hard-to-tell/">no longer look clearly different</a> from news stories. </p>
<p>With many readers coming to news sites from social media links, they may not pay attention to the subtle clues that mark a story published by the opinion staff. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Washington Post homepage on June 19, 2020. Opinions at top right; reporting to the left.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true">Screenshot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Add to this the fact that even readers who go to a paper’s homepage are met with news and opinion stories displayed graphically at the same level, connoting the same level of importance. And reporters share analysis and opinion on Twitter, further confusing readers. </p>
<p>The news sections of the paper also increasingly run <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13pubed.html">stories that contain a level of news analysis</a> that casual readers might not be able to distinguish from what The New York Times designates as opinion.</p>
<p>In 1970, when the op-ed page debuted in The New York Times, <a href="http://media-cmi.com/downloads/Sixty_Years_Daily_Newspaper_Circulation_Trends_050611.pdf">daily newspaper circulation was equivalent to 98% of U.S. households</a>. By 2010, that number had dropped below 40% and has continued to dip since then.</p>
<p>Even if readers in 1970 could clearly differentiate between news and opinion, they likely do not have the same level of critical engagement when news exists online and in almost unmanageable volume. </p>
<p>If news organizations such as The New York Times continue to maintain that a robust opinion section, separate from their news reports, serves to further the public conversation, then those institutions will need to do a better job of explaining to news consumers where – or if – the “wall” between news and opinion exists.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140901/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin M. Lerner 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>It is a tenet of American journalism that reporters working for the news sections of newspapers remain entirely independent of the opinion sections. But that wall may be invisible to readers.Kevin M. Lerner, Assistant Professor of Journalism, Marist CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1290732019-12-18T05:05:55Z2019-12-18T05:05:55ZFrom the editor: don’t believe the cynics, your trust in us shows facts still matter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307620/original/file-20191218-11939-zuhwt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=116%2C364%2C5059%2C3080&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">From the whole team, thank you for your support; we couldn't run this unique project without you. </span> </figcaption></figure><p>As this tumultuous and fascinating year draws to a close I want to take a minute to thank you for reading and supporting The Conversation. Your interest in the work of academics published here is a personal vote for facts and evidence, and the entire team working here is deeply grateful for it.</p>
<p>There are plenty of cynics these days who want to tell you that we live in a post-truth world, that facts are in retreat. But you, and the flourishing of The Conversation, are living proof that isn’t true, and it need not be our fate. </p>
<p>In 2019 our expert articles attracted more than 380 million reads across the globe. In Australia more than 100,000 people subscribe to the Conversation’s daily email. Thousands of media outlets regularly republish our work because they value the rigour of our non-partisan approach to sharing the best evidence and thinking on any topic. </p>
<p>At The Conversation we only publish academics who are writing in their area of expertise and know what they are talking about. We aim to be unbiased and we ask all authors to fill in a disclosure statement to identify any potential conflicts of interest. We only ever publish with one goal, and that is to inform. </p>
<p>Our mission is to democratise knowledge, to redistribute information from those who have it to those who need it most. We pursue this work with vigour and never deviate from our goal.</p>
<p>So thank you for supporting us with your attention and for so many of you with your financial giving too. This year more than 10,000 people made personal donations to The Conversation, and that money helps us continue our work. </p>
<p>(If you want to join this growing army of TC supporters<a href="https://donate.theconversation.com/au?amount=30&frequency=monthly"> you can do it here.</a>) </p>
<p>But most important, and most inspiring, is the fact that you care enough to want to know more and seek out information from quality sources you can trust. Thanks for placing your trust in us whether you are an author, a university, a reader or a donor. We value it, we know it is precious, and we will do everything in our power to live up to it. </p>
<p>Have a lovely relaxing break and may you flourish in 2020.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129073/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
‘Tis the season to thank you, our readers. We value you, we know you’re precious, and we will do everything in our power to provide you with trusted information.Misha Ketchell, Editor, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1164712019-05-17T10:44:43Z2019-05-17T10:44:43ZPolitical cartoonists are out of touch – it’s time to make way for memes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274721/original/file-20190515-60554-1ti5x8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not everyone possesses the skills to draw a cartoon, but pretty much anyone can make a meme.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Lehr/The Conversation</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The New York Times came <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/28/media/ny-times-anti-semitic-cartoon/index.html">under fire</a> after a political cartoon appeared in print on April 25, 2019. In it, a blind President Donald Trump, wearing sunglasses and a yarmulke, is being led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s depicted as a guide dog with a Star of David around his neck.</p>
<p>The Times later <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/business/ny-times-anti-semitic-cartoon.html">issued an apology</a>, called the cartoon “anti-Semitic,” and announced that it would discipline the editor and enhance its bias training. The newspaper also indicated that <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-york-times-drops-syndication-service-that-supplied-anti-semitic-cartoon">it will no longer use</a> the syndication service that supplied the cartoon. </p>
<p>To some, this might appear to be a significant move. But it fails to address larger problems with editorial cartooning – namely, the ranks of cartoonists are too white, too old and too male.</p>
<p><a href="https://newhouse.syr.edu/faculty-staff/jennifer-grygiel">As a scholar who studies social media and memetics</a>, I wonder if political cartoons are the best way to connect with today’s diverse readership. Many crave searing, cutting political commentary – and they’re finding it in internet memes. </p>
<p>What if internet memes were elevated – not only as a serious art form but also as an important form of editorializing that’s worthy of appearing alongside the traditional cartoon?</p>
<h2>Behind the times</h2>
<p>Newspapers and magazine editors <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-19193-2_11#citeas">still rely on political cartoons</a> to capture readers’ attention and to deliver some lighter material alongside heavier news stories. The need for this content isn’t going away, nor is the need for forms of communication that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1218297">challenge governments and open up important public discussions</a> – a role the political cartoonist has long held.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274696/original/file-20190515-60545-5k109i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274696/original/file-20190515-60545-5k109i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274696/original/file-20190515-60545-5k109i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274696/original/file-20190515-60545-5k109i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274696/original/file-20190515-60545-5k109i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274696/original/file-20190515-60545-5k109i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274696/original/file-20190515-60545-5k109i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274696/original/file-20190515-60545-5k109i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Political cartoons have long been used to criticize – and mock – those in power.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/declined-thanks-political-cartoon-pres-mckinley-787304683?src=EOtdwfByBqm6RQIYpyTUoQ-1-0">Everett Historical/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But in many ways, political cartooning can seem like a relic of a bygone era. </p>
<p>A 2015 Washington Post report also underscored the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/12/29/in-a-tamir-rice-era-why-are-there-no-staff-black-cartoonists-to-comment/">lack of diversity among political cartoonists in newsrooms</a>, noting how not a single black individual was employed as one.</p>
<p>Then there’s journalism’s top prize, the Pulitzer. </p>
<p>An extensive <a href="https://www.cjr.org/analysis/100_years_of_data.php">2016 study by the Columbia Journalism Review</a> unveiled how the ranks of editorial cartoon Pulitzer winners have been largely dominated by white men. Since 1922, only two women have received a Pulitzer in this category, and it wasn’t awarded to an African American until this year, when syndicated cartoonist Darrin Bell became the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/04/16/714073919/pulitzer-prize-winner-darrin-bell-on-how-trayvon-martins-death-inspired-his-work">first to receive the award</a>. </p>
<p>One roadblock to diversifying the ranks of political cartoonists is that the potential pool of candidates is limited. Few have the technical skill to draw pen-and-ink drollery, the common style for political cartooning. </p>
<p>Another has to do with industry trends. A 2017 study found that <a href="https://www-tandfonline-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1218297">many newspapers don’t even employ an editorial cartoonist anymore</a>. Instead, they’ve come to rely on less expensive syndication services. </p>
<h2>A more democratic form</h2>
<p>Given the important function of the political cartoon, simply discontinuing their use serves no one, including publishers. </p>
<p>But the field’s high barrier to entry – not to mention the time it takes to actually produce a cartoon – clearly poses a problem. A new, quicker and more inclusive solution to political commentary is needed.</p>
<p>The political cartoon is technically a <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme">meme</a>, which is simply any piece of culture that can be copied or replicated. </p>
<p>A different sort of political cartoon, the internet meme, dominates on social media. Often crudely constructed, they’re far easier to create than, say, your typical New Yorker political cartoon. Many simply appear as a photo with text overlay, something that can be made within a few minutes via an online meme generator or mobile app. But the lack of technical skill needed means that they’re democratic in nature – and those that resonate the best will get shared the most and rise to the top. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/Btjl6eJg3Y-","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>A new common meme format simply entails brief, humorous, text-based commentary. Words are memes, after all, and they can be used to communicate ideas very quickly and clearly, which avoids some of the issues with visual rhetoric such as misinterpretation or misrepresentation – the exact sort of thing that happened with The New York Times cartoon. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1118208511975075841"}"></div></p>
<h2>Memers of the world, unite!</h2>
<p>Cartooning is undoubtedly a skilled art form. But in 2019, an ugly internet meme that uses a screen grab from “The Office” and quippy text overlay can have just as much clout – if not more – than a sophisticated political cartoon. </p>
<p>Internet memes increasingly play a role in politics and even have the power to <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/russia-ira-propaganda-senate-report/">influence elections</a>. Facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of followers are dedicated entirely to propagating and spreading political internet memes, such as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/23/how-bernie-sanders-became-the-lord-of-dank-memes/">Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/godemperortrumpofficial/">God Emperor Trump</a>. </p>
<p>Politics has become, in many ways – as campaign strategist Doyle Canning put it – “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/09/technology/political-memes-go-mainstream.html">a battle of the memes</a>.”</p>
<p>Some publishers and media outlets understand the value of user-generated content in political discourse and news gathering. For example, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BwyCDUsFoOF/">BuzzFeed</a> occasionally posts lighthearted political internet memes on its social media platforms that speak to a younger audience. The Associated Press employs <a href="https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/new-editor-fergus-bell-explains-how-ap-verifies-user-generated-content-from-sandy-to-syria/">user-generated content editors</a> who comb social media platforms for important images associated with news events. </p>
<p>Memers, meanwhile, are beginning to see their role in driving internet traffic – and ad revenue – and are beginning to formalize their work and employment as content creators. They’re even beginning to organize, with some groups <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/4/22/18507941/instagram-meme-union">seeking union status</a>. It’s possible that new syndication services may develop for political memes out of these efforts. </p>
<p>But there have been few signs of anyone printing a meme in a physical newspaper or magazine unless it’s controversial enough to become the topic of a news story. To serve print needs, what if publishers hired staff memers or freelance memers – individuals with a pulse for viral content and an understanding of what resonates with younger readers, who could construct stylized, more professional-looking memes that could appear in print and on the web?</p>
<p>Again, this isn’t to say that traditional political cartoons no longer have a role. But it’s time for publishers to anoint the internet meme as worthy of publication. </p>
<p>After all, the best political commentary is just as likely to be found on Tumblr as the pages of the Times.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116471/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Grygiel owns a small number of shares in the following social media companies: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn, YY and Snap.</span></em></p>With sharp political commentary just as likely to be found on Tumblr as in the pages of the Times, why aren’t the best internet memes being published in the nation’s top periodicals?Jennifer Grygiel, Assistant Professor of Communications (Social Media) & Magazine, News and Digital Journalism, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1108822019-01-31T00:45:24Z2019-01-31T00:45:24ZFrom the editor: it’s time to step up, free press needs allies<p><em>This article originally appeared in <a href="https://cw.iabc.com/">Communication World magazine</a>, published by the International Association of Business Communicators <a href="https://www.iabc.com/">(IABC).</a></em></p>
<hr>
<p>We live in a time when the bullying of journalists has become a casual pastime for the president of the U.S. When journalists around the world are increasingly being stripped of rights and persecuted by governments that ought to know better. When a man like Jamal Khashoggi can be brutally assassinated for his writing. When all over the world, the businesses that supported journalism have been diminished by behemoths like Facebook and Google.</p>
<p>For anyone who, like me, is old-fashioned enough to have grown up intoxicated by the idea of fearless journalists holding power to account, we have come a long way from All the President’s Men. From the U.S president on down, the forces now arrayed against public interest journalism are pervasive and insidious. It needs champions like never before.</p>
<h2>The value of journalism</h2>
<p>Discussion of public interest journalism tends to focus on the role of journalists in holding power to account. Big investigations like Watergate most readily spring to mind. This high-profile work is vital, but there is another role for quality journalism that is even more fundamental: Journalists provide quality information that helps people understand the world around them and make informed decisions.
Reliable information is essential for healthy democracy, but it does so much more than help us take part in public debate or decide how to vote. It also helps decide what to eat to stay healthy, or how to keep your children safe online, or how to avoid the risks of problem gambling. Public interest journalism can provide essential context to help people make sense of a complex and confusing barrage of information. Quality information makes markets more efficient. It provides essential insights that help us understand our environment, our culture, our history. It underpins the health and well-being of society.</p>
<p>For example, when it first became clear tobacco was a lethal product, it was public interest media that reported the dangers. Simultaneously, tobacco companies redirected massive budgets to spread doubt so people would keep smoking. Vested interests set out to present the clear science as subject to debate. They were able to delay policy responses and stop people from quitting.</p>
<p>In the digital age, in which social media supports dissemination of content without any regard to its accuracy, the task of muddying the waters on matters of great public importance is simpler and cheaper than ever before. There is a deluge of information, but it is increasingly difficult for audiences to know what to trust. The destruction of the business model that supports quality journalism has created a digital public sphere where there are more voices than ever before, but it is infected with disinformation.</p>
<p>This is why preserving and protecting the role of public interest journalism is vital. And to achieve this, we need to define public interest journalism in a way that reflects the breadth of what public interest journalism really is: the independent dissemination of trustworthy information.</p>
<h2>The outrage cycle</h2>
<p>The media plays a vital role in providing this trustworthy information. But the modern media is also limited in significant ways: While journalists are very good at holding power to account, many journalists believe it is not their role to provide solutions to complex problems. Increasingly, journalists are swimming upstream against powerful forces that discourage this type of work.</p>
<p>As a consequence, in much of the media we consume today, solutions-based reporting on complex challenges like climate change is crowded out by a cycle of outrage. The business model demands this. For media companies, success or failure is measured in audience: More people spending more time with your journalism means more revenue.
This type of engagement is highest for the type of journalism that provokes strong feelings, either negative or positive, not the type that requires thought. Hence the stunning success of the Fox News business model of perpetual outrage. Forget the political worldview for a minute—the key reason Fox News is successful is that it provides its audiences an utterly reliable emotional experience.</p>
<p>This type of preaching to the choir has always been part of the media landscape, but the growing sophistication of audience data made possible by the digital revolution has transformed the unreliable gut-instinct guesses of editors into a dismal science.</p>
<h2>New media challenges</h2>
<p>Not so long ago, newspaper editors used to run campaigns on topics they considered in the public interest, such as reducing the road toll or fixing hospital waiting lists. But this type of journalism is expensive and time-consuming, and better data has shown us that while we all say we care about these issues, when you measure what people actually click on, the public appetite for these types of stories is hard to predict.</p>
<p>It’s not easy to justify pursuing this type of work when the fleeting scandals of the daily news cycle will provide a more predictable audience. These trends have been amplified by the ways in which digital platforms like Facebook and Google have created powerful near-monopolies in the attention economy, and now exert huge power over audiences.</p>
<p>All media companies now rely on Facebook and Google to direct audiences to them, but they also have to compete with the deluge of content produced by these digital giants. And they do it with one hand tied behind their backs. Google and Facebook don’t purport to provide journalism, and so they have no obligation to serve the public interest. Unlike journalists, they are free to do whatever it takes to win an audience.</p>
<p>All this means that media companies are trapped in a negative spiral. They face an existential commercial threat from digital platforms. To compete, they need to be ruthless in their pursuit of audience. In many cases, this means spending less time reporting on complex problems and more time seeking attention at any cost. And this makes their work harder to distinguish as journalism, which corrodes their very reason to exist.</p>
<h2>New models</h2>
<p>If we want to continue to have journalism that can provide transparency and help us address complex problems, we all need to defend it and support it. Gestures like Time magazine’s decision in 2018 to name four journalists and one newspaper as its Person of the Year are laudable and necessary. The success of newspapers like The Washington Post and the New York Times under Donald Trump is also encouraging.</p>
<p>And there are new models emerging, such as The Conversation, a global editorial network that works with academic experts to provide reliable information to inform the public. As editor of The Conversation and part of the team that founded it, I am committed to producing journalism that grapples with complex problems and focuses on solutions. It’s a gap in the market and it is vital that whoever does this work does it to serve the public interest, not vested interests.</p>
<p>At end the of the day, journalism is an ecosystem. It requires a range of voices and perspectives and missions to serve the public. Some of the journalism will be provided by commercial operators in the market. Some will be provided by public broadcasters and funded by governments.</p>
<p>It all needs financial support, through subscriptions or donations, but it needs moral support too. Please stand up for journalism when you can, and support it with your attention, subscriptions and donations. But even more important is to understand the true value of what all journalists do—most especially those in our profession who accept grave risks—and act accordingly to protect their rights and support their work.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110882/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Strong public interest journalism needs champions like never before. The Conversation’s editor Misha Ketchell explains why.Misha Ketchell, Editor, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/827532017-08-23T05:39:44Z2017-08-23T05:39:44ZBeer, bongs and baby boomers: the unlikely tale of drug and alcohol use in the over 50s<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183066/original/file-20170822-13660-1p7ity1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Baby boomers who drink and take drugs risk a range of physical and mental problems that younger substance users don't necessarily face.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/496022509?src=J4JwkXDIzM9va_WIHJgxBQ-2-62&size=medium_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you ask someone what a typical heavy drinker or drug user looks like, they’re probably more likely to evoke images of Gen Ys with tattoos and piercings than greying baby boomers. </p>
<p>But recent Australian data, outlined in our <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3885">British Medical Journal editorial today</a>, shows rates of alcohol and drug use are actually decreasing among younger age groups, while increasing dramatically in people over the age of 50.</p>
<p>Not only is there a rise in the proportion of older people who regularly drink at risky levels, there are also more older people using cannabis.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/maybe-moderate-drinking-isnt-so-good-for-you-after-all-72266">Maybe moderate drinking isn't so good for you after all</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So, it’s not surprising Australia’s <a href="https://www.hcasa.asn.au/documents/555-national-drug-strategy-2017-2026/file">recently released National Drug Strategy 2017-2026</a> identifies older people as a priority group for attention.</p>
<p>The data has implications not only for the health of the over 50s, but also for health professionals that diagnose and manage substance use or misuse, and the complications that can arise from it.</p>
<p>Evidence shows we can no longer view drug and alcohol issues purely as a young person’s concern.</p>
<h2>Why is alcohol and drug use rising in older Australians?</h2>
<p>Low birth rates and extended life expectancy have resulted in large increases in the <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/facts-and-figures/ageing-australia">proportion of older Australians</a> and higher absolute numbers of older people who drink and use drugs.</p>
<p>For example, the <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/ndshs-2016/data/">one in four 50-59 year-olds</a> drinking at risky levels (five or more standard drinks in a single session) corresponds to <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Sep%202016?OpenDocument">about 755,394</a> people.</p>
<p>Baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) have <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6761">higher rates</a> of alcohol and drug use than earlier cohorts of older Australians and many continue this use into their older years.</p>
<p><a href="http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/3514/1679/0404/EN557.pdf">Improvements in health care and treatments for substance use</a> mean more people survive into old age, drinking and taking drugs for longer.</p>
<p>Older Australians today also have more disposable income than in previous generations, making access to alcohol and drugs <a href="http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0021-25712012000300004">more affordable</a>.</p>
<h2>What does the evidence say?</h2>
<p>Our research, using data from the <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/about-ndshs/">National Drug Strategy Household Survey</a>, shows high-risk drinking (11 or more standard drinks on a single occasion) in the over 50s increased significantly between 2004 and 2013. People living in regional or remote areas or who smoke tobacco were more likely to drink this way.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/ndshs-2016/data/">newly released 2016 data</a> indicates this upward trend is continuing even more strongly.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/ndshs-2016/data/">In 2016</a>, 11.9% of 50-59 year olds drank at high-risk levels at least yearly (up from 9.1% in 2013). A total of 5.8% did so at least monthly (up from 4.1%).</p>
<p>Cannabis use among the over 50s <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajag.12357/abstract">more than doubled</a> between 2004 and 2013, from 1.5% to 3.6%. Unmarried men who smoked, drank alcohol, and used other drugs were particularly likely to use cannabis.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/remind-me-again-how-does-cannabis-affect-the-brain-40641">Remind me again, how does cannabis affect the brain?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There is little reliable data on other illicit drug use in older people. But our data shows older people are using more pharmaceuticals, like <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pds.1899/abstract">sedatives</a> and <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2011/195/5/prescription-opioid-analgesics-and-related-harms-australia">opioids</a>, than before.</p>
<p>And <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/ndshs-2016/data/">in 2016</a>, 4.1% of 50-59 year olds and 4.5% of people 60 and over used pharmaceutical drugs for non-medical purposes.</p>
<p>Older people often use pharmaceuticals to treat pain (both physical and emotional) or sleep problems. This can also result in balance problems, falls/injuries, reduced ability to function, and even death.</p>
<p>You can find out more about the prevalence of substance use among older Australians in the <a href="http://nadk.flinders.edu.au/">National Alcohol and Drug Knowledgebase</a>.</p>
<h2>Why is all this concerning?</h2>
<p>Growing use of alcohol, cannabis, and prescription drug misuse among older Australians is concerning for a number of reasons.</p>
<p>Older people are more sensitive to the toxic effects of substances such as alcohol. This is because ageing <a href="http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/4114/2249/7473/RCP_2011.pdf">reduces the body’s capacity</a> to metabolise, distribute, and excrete alcohol and drugs.</p>
<p>Older people are also more likely to have <a href="http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/3514/1679/0404/EN557.pdf">existing physical or psychological conditions</a>, or to take medicines that may <a href="http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/4114/2249/7473/RCP_2011.pdf">interact</a> with alcohol and drugs.</p>
<p>So older people who use alcohol and/or drugs may be more <a href="http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/4114/2249/7473/RCP_2011.pdf">likely to have</a>: falls and other injuries, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, mental health problems (including suicide), obesity, liver disease, <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b8ed/eefa7da25bb2656bc0335cc6768d62b9f039.pdf">early-onset dementia and other brain injury</a>, sleep disorders, and blood borne diseases.</p>
<h2>Not all older people have problems with drugs and alcohol</h2>
<p>Not all older people who use alcohol and/or drugs have problems. Older people, like other age groups, use alcohol or drugs in many different ways and for many different reasons, as we show with this “<a href="http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/7014/1679/1083/EN559.pdf">typology of older users</a>”:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>maintainers</strong> continue with their previously unproblematic use as they get older. But age-related changes (like those already outlined) result in increased harms later in life</p></li>
<li><p><strong>survivors</strong> begin using alcohol/drugs early in life. They have a long history of substance use problems that persist into older age and this often results in other physical and/or mental health problems</p></li>
<li><p><strong>reactors</strong> begin using alcohol/drugs in their 50s or 60s, often due to <a href="http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118993772.html">stressful events</a>, like grief, retirement, marital breakdown, social isolation (<a href="http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/august/substancemisuse.pdf">particularly older women</a>), or due to pain.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Do treatments work for older people?</h2>
<p>The good news is, research shows substance use treatment is <a href="http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/9814/2250/4969/Hunter_2010.pdf">just as effective</a> for older people as it is for younger age groups. </p>
<p>Treatment programs adapted specifically for older people have <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878764915001394">even better outcomes</a>.</p>
<p>This is important, as the number of older people who require treatment for alcohol or drug problems is increasing substantially, <a href="http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/august/substancemisuse.pdf">both in Australia</a> <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13607863.2013.793653?tab=permissions&scroll=top">and</a> <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/43/2/304/675582/Substance-use-disorders-and-psychiatric">overseas</a>.</p>
<h2>Not everyone gets treatment</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, there are <a href="http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/1314/1679/1662/EN561.pdf">barriers</a> that can <a href="http://alcoholresearchuk.org/downloads/finalReports/FinalReport_0085">make it harder</a> for older Australians to access treatment or support.</p>
<p>Health-care practitioners and family members may:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>be reluctant to ask older people “embarrassing” questions about substance use</p></li>
<li><p>not know alcohol/drug use is common in older people, or how to address it</p></li>
<li><p>incorrectly attribute symptoms of problem substance use to “just getting older”</p></li>
<li><p>incorrectly believe older people are too old to change.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Older people may also be reluctant to seek help because of embarrassment, logistical problems (like a lack of transport), inappropriate treatment services for older people, or they do not know where to turn for help.</p>
<p>To combat these problems, we developed a <a href="https://www.peninsulahealth.org.au/wp-content/uploads/AODPenHealth_150915.pdf">free guide</a> to preventing and reducing alcohol and drug related harm among older people for health and welfare professionals.</p>
<h2>What needs to change</h2>
<p>Health-care services and the aged care sector need to work better together to prevent problem substance use among older people. They also need to provide age-appropriate treatment and harm minimisation services to people who need them. </p>
<p>Clinicians also need to better identify and treat alcohol, cannabis, and prescription drug misuse in their older patients.</p>
<p>Finally, we need more research into the best approaches for helping older people with substance use problems.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>If you would like to talk to a professional about your own or someone else’s alcohol or drug use, contact the free Alcohol and Drug Information Service in your <a href="http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/CA12F53389330BD1CA2577EC007DEAFB/$File/ADIS.pdf">state or territory</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82753/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction receives funding from the Commonwealth Department of Health.</span></em></p>More Australians over 50 are drinking and taking drugs than ever before. Here’s why that can be a problem.Ann Roche, Professor and Director of the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Flinders UniversityVictoria Kostadinov, Research officer, National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664732016-10-17T01:05:46Z2016-10-17T01:05:46ZWhy newspaper endorsements might matter more in this election<p>What do <a href="http://www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650345.php">The Houston Chronicle</a>, <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/09/07/recommend-hillary-clinton-us-president">The Dallas Morning News</a>, <a href="http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/09/23/enquirer-endorses-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/90728344/">The Cincinnati Enquirer</a> and <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2016/10/09/1-editorial-for-president-trump-unfit-clinton-is-qualified.html">The Columbus Dispatch</a> have in common? </p>
<p>They’ve all broken from their tradition of endorsing Republican nominees and have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. </p>
<p>On the same note, The Chicago Tribune, USA Today and The Atlantic have also done something new this cycle: <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html">The Tribune</a> endorsed the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson (the paper usually endorses the Republican nominee, except for Barack Obama in 2008). The latter two usually don’t make endorsements but have written editorials urging voters to either not vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump (<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/">USA Today</a>) or vote for Hillary Clinton (<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/">The Atlantic</a>). </p>
<p>In fact, <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/tv/donald-trump-makes-history-zero-major-newspaper-endorsements-000943174.html">none of the top 50 newspapers</a> has endorsed Trump so far – <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/clinton-trump-newspaper-endorsements">a stark difference from the 2012 race</a>, when GOP candidate Mitt Romney garnered a number of endorsements. </p>
<p>This avalanche of surprise endorsements has raised an important question: Do newspapers endorsements even matter? And, if so, do some matter more than others? </p>
<h2>Going to the betting markets</h2>
<p>In 2008, we were living in Chicago when The Chicago Tribune decided to endorse, for the first time in its history, a Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. It was big news. </p>
<p>As economists born outside of the United States, we were curious about this phenomenon. Around the world, newspaper endorsements for political candidates aren’t the norm; they certainly don’t take place in our home countries (Argentina, France and Portugal). So we decided to investigate the impact of newspaper endorsements. </p>
<p>We’re not the first to do so; <a href="http://restud.oxfordjournals.org/content/78/3/795">in an influential paper</a>, economists Chun-Fang Chiang and Brian Knight found that newspapers endorsements are likely to influence readers’ decisions, especially those of more moderate voters. </p>
<p>Building upon this research, we wanted to address a different issue: To what extent can newspaper endorsements influence the daily odds of each candidate winning? </p>
<p>Winning candidates will often receive a good chunk of endorsements. But it’s difficult to tell whether the endorsements helped get him or her the votes, or whether they earned votes simply due to the fact that they were good candidates. It’s the common dilemma of “causation or correlation.”</p>
<p>Therefore, our main challenge was creating a situation in which the quality of the candidate could remain constant, but the vote share could move. </p>
<p>To do this, we used data from online prediction markets – specifically, INTRADE, a now-defunct online platform that included a prediction exchange that would allow people to take positions (called “contracts”) on the probability of practically any event taking place. Contracts might include “England to win the 2010 Soccer World Cup,” “Jennifer Lawrence to win the Oscar for Best Actress” or, in our case, “Obama to win US Presidential Election” in 2008 and 2012. The price of a contract depends on the probability of the event taking place. For example, after England tied with the United States 1-1 in its first World Cup soccer match against South Africa, the corresponding contract for England winning the World Cup saw its price dramatically go down. </p>
<p>As such, the contract price reflects the average probability of a candidate winning the election, as estimated by market participants. For example, say the price of an “Obama winning the election” contract was US$5.25 on a given day. This meant that Obama had a 52.5 percent probability of winning at the time of purchase. If you bought a contract on that day – and if Obama ended up winning – you’d earn $10, for a net gain of $4.75. If he lost, the owner would lose his initial bet. Some researchers prefer these measures to polls because, rather than asking for a voter’s preferences, prediction markets make people “put their money where their mouth is.” </p>
<p>Following this tradition, we collected the data of the 2008 and 2012 elections, and used the price on the Obama contract to show his daily probability of winning. We then looked at how a day with a number of endorsements supporting one or the other candidate influenced this probability (measured at the end of the day). </p>
<p>But not every newspaper endorsement is equal, and it’s important to factor this into the analysis as well. Some have more readers than others. Some tend to support Republican candidates, while others tend to support Democratic candidates.</p>
<p>For this reason, we classified newspapers according to their political leaning along two dimensions already measured in the literature: (1) the media slant (<a href="http://web.stanford.edu/%7Egentzkow/research/biasmeas.pdf">a measure created in the influential work</a> of economists Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro) and (2) their propensity to endorse the Democratic candidate, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/100.00000009">data that come from the work</a> of political scientists Stephen Ansolabehere, Rebecca Lessem and James M. Snyder. </p>
<p>The media slant measure – which examines the ideology of the newspaper and the language used in covering polarizing matters such as abortion, illegal immigrants and stem-cell research – is used to determine whether or not an endorsement is a surprise.</p>
<p>We then estimated the impact of such endorsements on Obama’s probability of winning. </p>
<h2>The results, and what they mean in 2016</h2>
<p>Our first findings built nicely upon previous research. We found, perhaps not surprisingly, that endorsements from high-circulation newspapers have a larger effect on the probability of winning.</p>
<p>More interestingly, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12317/abstract">our results</a> suggested that endorsements that were a surprise (given the editorial board choices in previous elections) – but were still consistent with the traditional style and rhetoric of the newspaper – seemed to matter the most. For instance, The Chicago Tribune’s endorsement for Obama in 2008 seemed to have a significant effect. The paper had never endorsed a Democrat candidate before, but it also maintained its traditional center-right style and tone.</p>
<p>Overall, we found that on days with at least one endorsement, the endorsed candidate experiences higher odds of winning. There’s some evidence that this effect increases the more endorsements a candidate receives on a given day. However, this should be taken with a grain of salt; with each additional endorsement, the marginal effect decreases. </p>
<p>Among the many strange events of this election cycle are the huge share of surprise endorsements. Because one candidate, Donald Trump, has distanced himself from the traditional ideology of his party, he’s also distanced himself from the traditional ideology of some editorial boards. The combination of these two anomalies have brought newspaper endorsements into the spotlight more than ever before. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141861/original/image-20161014-30252-1u0vjrr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A chart compares newspaper endorsements from 2012 and 2016.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Extrapolating our results to the current election, this means that USA Today’s mandate to not elect Trump could have a significant effect, since it’s one of the top U.S. newspapers in terms of circulation. </p>
<p>And what about Hillary’s endorsements from right-leaning publications that endorsed Romney in 2012, like The Cincinnati Enquirer? Using our data from previous election cycles, if Clinton had a 50 percent chance of winning on the day of the endorsement, it would have likely increased her odds of winning the election by a couple of percentage points.</p>
<p>Putting our economists’ hats on, we know our results should be interpreted with caution, as they speak to short-run effects on the perceived probability of a candidate winning the elections. Those effects may fade as we get closer to election date or as long as other events take place during the campaign. Naturally, new information could emerge about a candidate that influences the final outcome. The most conservative interpretation of our results is that newspaper endorsements can help to create momentum that the receiving candidate can build upon. </p>
<p>In our paper, we explain in detail why the interpretation of our results should be taken as causal, and not casual. (That is, our identification strategy implies that the probability of winning increases due to the endorsements and not other events that may have taken place the same day.)</p>
<p>In sum, do endorsements matter? Definitely. They can help create momentum for the candidate and slightly shift the odds. But will they define the outcome on Election Day? Unlikely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66473/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yarine Fawaz receives funding from ECO2013-46516-C4-1-R (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia) and SGR2014-1279 (Generalitat de Catalunya). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Agustin Casas and André Trindade do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People tend to assume that most papers have an inherent bias, so a group of economists looked at what happens when there’s a surprise pick.Agustin Casas, Assistant Professor of Organization and Business Management, CUNEFAndré Trindade, Assistant Professor of Economics, Getulio Vargas FoundationYarine Fawaz, Research Fellow, Center for Monetary and Financial StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/651822016-09-14T12:20:25Z2016-09-14T12:20:25ZFacebook’s algorithms give it more editorial responsibility – not less<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137741/original/image-20160914-4963-1mnhnv7.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">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recent criticism of Facebook for <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37318031">removing a post</a> containing the iconic image of a naked girl during the Vietnam War <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/11/facebook-censorship-news-feed-trending-topics">isn’t the first time</a> it has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/dear-mark-zuckerberg-why-editors-were-wrong-to-damn-facebook-for-censorship-65264">accused of censorship</a>. Yet at the same time, it is regularly rebuked for failing to remove quickly enough hateful, illegal or inappropriate material, most recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/29/facebook-germany-monitor-racist-violent-content">by the German government</a>.</p>
<p>The difficult job of deciding whether or not to publish something – or to withdraw it – used to fall to the human editors of print publications, broadcasters and websites. Now that so many of us access news and entertainment through social media sites such as Facebook, the forces that control what we do and don’t see have shifted. But Facebook’s increasing use of computer algorithms means it has more editorial responsibility, not less – despite what the company wants us to believe.</p>
<p>Facebook is keen to avoid being labelled a publisher. This would leave it liable to media regulations and libel laws. Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg made this clear recently when he <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/germany-facebook-edit-hateful-posts-zuckerberg-says-not-media-empire/">reportedly said</a>: “We’re a tech company, we’re not a media company. [We build] the tools, we do not produce any of the content.”</p>
<p>Social media sites argue that the algorithms they use to determine what a user sees only provide recommendations, rather than publishing, removing or altering the content. But how visible the site makes the content has a huge impact on how far it spreads beyond the account of the original contributor. The way an algorithm works can have a similar effect to a newspaper editor selecting a piece for the front page.</p>
<h2>The gatekeepers</h2>
<p>A report from the <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/News%20Plurality%20in%20a%20Digital%20World_0.pdf">Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism</a> found social media and search engine sites act as editorial gatekeepers that affect the nature and range of news content that users have access to.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are no exact parallels for the new digital intermediaries identified here – most are not neutral “pipes” like ISPs, through which all internet content flows (although Twitter is close to this); nor are they pure media companies like broadcasters or newspapers, heavily involved in creative and editorial decisions. But they do perform important roles in selecting and channelling information, which implies a legitimate public interest in what they do.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Social sites counter that the content sorting and recommending only seems like editorial judgement. Because it is done by computer software, not humans, the sorting is purely objective. The algorithms merely select results in a way that aims to give users helpful and useful information.</p>
<p>There are two main problems with this argument. First, the algorithms often aren’t yet sophisticated enough to work entirely free of human involvement. After <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/24/facebook-changes-trending-topics-anti-conservative-bias">accusations of political bias</a>, Facebook recently decided to fire the human editors of its “trending” news section and <a href="http://qz.com/768122/facebook-fires-human-editors-moves-to-algorithm-for-trending-topics/">replace them entirely</a> with algorithms. Yet this software was less-than-perfect and Facebook engineers now check the automatically calculated trending stories after <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/29/facebook-fires-trending-topics-team-algorithm">several inaccurate or sexually explicit posts</a> were promoted.</p>
<p>Second, the idea that algorithms are “neutral” and rely on logical decisions that are inherently free from prejudice is deeply flawed. The software makes a “rational” choice about relative benefits of different posts based on a set of values and selects which ones to promote to users.</p>
<p>These values have to be decided by a designer, or from <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-big-data-that-discriminates-its-the-people-that-use-it-55591">data selected by the designer</a>, and so are a form of <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-data-algorithms-can-discriminate-and-its-not-clear-what-to-do-about-it-45849">human prejudice</a> that’s built into the system. This means the responsibility for editorial decisions made by an algorithmic tool still falls back on its creators and those who are in charge of setting the values (usually the bosses of the company).</p>
<p>The power that comes with the editorial influence that social media sites have developed means the sites also have a public responsibility over what they do and do not allow users to see. As the <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/News%20Plurality%20in%20a%20Digital%20World_0.pdf">Reuters report says</a>, we now need regulation to protect the public against undue influence or manipulation of information by social media. In part this means transparency. Social media firms should make public the criteria by which they select stories for promotion. But more broadly it means Facebook and other sites like it need to take seriously the editorial responsibility that they now have.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65182/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ansgar Koene is a co-investigator on the "UnBias: Emancipating Users Against Algorithmic Biases for a Trusted Digital Economy" project, which is funded by a grant from the EPSRC Trust, Identity, Privacy and Security programme in the RCUK Digital Economy theme.
He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute of The University of Nottingham.</span></em></p>Making decisions about what people do and don’t read is the traditional role of an editor, no matter what Facebook claims.Ansgar Koene, Senior Research Fellow, Horizon Digital Economy, UnBias, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/642432016-08-22T14:54:04Z2016-08-22T14:54:04ZQuestions that need to be asked to save South Africa’s public broadcaster<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134931/original/image-20160822-18702-fp7ame.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters decry the decision by the South African Broadcasting Corporation not to air scenes of violent protest.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Mike Hutchings</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The problems at South Africa’s public broadcaster have become legendary in the country. These range from serious mismanagement, to loss of editorial independence and poor financial management. </p>
<p>The problem is particularly serious because the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) remains the only source of information for <a href="http://www.saarf.co.za/saarf/newsreleases.asp">most South Africans</a>. But fixing the problem isn’t easy. This is because the country’s parliament, which has oversight, has been unable to impose its authority on decisions made by the SABC’s board, or on the minister in charge.</p>
<p>As a result the SABC has stumbled from one crisis to another. Its financial situation has become more <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/investigations/2016/07/10/Cash-starved-SABC-wants-bank-loan-of-R1.5bn">precarious every year</a> and its ability to fulfil its mandate more tenuous.</p>
<p>There were high hopes that the SABC would become a true public broadcaster after the end of apartheid – an era when it was used ruthlessly as a propaganda machine. But after a <a href="http://www.nab.org.za/content/page/broadcast-industry">promising start</a>, with concerted efforts to turn the SABC into a true public broadcaster (that included a democratically elected board and strong public service orientated editorial policies) it soon became clear that there was ongoing interference from the governing African National Congress (ANC). A glaring example included the <a href="http://www.fxi.org.za/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=174">blacklisting</a> in 2006 of commentators critical of then president Thabo Mbeki.</p>
<h2>Parliament’s failure</h2>
<p>The South African Parliament has a <a href="http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-07-14-sabc-mess-now-in-parliaments-care.-dont-hold-your-breath./#.V7oefCh96hc">dismal track record</a> of sorting out the SABC’s problems. This goes back years.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.acts.co.za/broadcasting-act-1999/2_object_of_act">Broadcasting Act of 1999</a> gave the legislature significant oversight powers, including the power to appoint the SABC’s board and to hold it to account in terms of its financial and corporate plans. Parliament was also given the power to hold the SABC to account in terms of its <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/portal/SABC/SABCCHARTER">charter</a>. </p>
<p>But parliament’s portfolio committee has fallen victim to <a href="http://www.theafricareport.com/Southern-Africa/south-africa-anc-factionalism-battles-emerge-ahead-of-2016-polls.html">internal battles</a> within the ANC and has simply not performed. It has routinely abandoned its oversight role.</p>
<p>The hard questions that members of parliament have failed to ask range from issues of editorial integrity through to questions on finances, particularly linked to financial mismanagement.</p>
<p>The SABC is <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/wcm/connect/abcc2f8049f38beead0defa53d9712f0/ANNUAL+REPORT+2015+part+3.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=abcc2f8049f38beead0defa53d9712f0">financed</a> through a combination of advertising (about 80%) licence fees (about 18%) and government (2%). It differs from public broadcasters in other countries because it relies heavily on advertising. Generally they rely on approximately 60% public funding. </p>
<h2>Editorial principles</h2>
<p>The first set of hard questions MPs ought to have asked is around the SABC abandoning its editorial principles. For example, why did management issue the clearly illegal <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2016/05/27/SABC-will-no-longer-broadcast-footage-displaying-violent-protests">policy directive</a> to ban footage of violent protests, particularly during an election period? A number of violent service delivery protests broke out in the run-up to local government elections in August. The SABC claimed that showing footage of protests would encourage further violence.</p>
<p>Management should have been asked why it initially <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2016-07-11-hlaudi-and-sabc-board-refuse-to-end-their-ban-on-airing-violent-protests-because-regulatory-body-icasa-is-not-a-court-of-law">defied</a> a ruling by the broadcast regulator that its ban was <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/91c56f004d746c0499c0df4b5facb1b5/Icasa-orders-SABC-to-withdraw-its-decision-to-ban-violent-protests-20161107">illegal</a>. The SABC initially played for time, saying it would take the matter on review. It eventually said it would comply. </p>
<p>Finally, management should have been asked why it went ahead and <a href="https://www.enca.com/south-africa/dismissed-sabc-journalists-back-in-court-today">illegally</a> fired journalists for defying the ban. </p>
<p>There is every indication that the broadcaster’s management is still bent on continuing to show the government – and particularly President Jacob Zuma – in a good light. Management recently passed a set of <a href="http://www.soscoalition.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SABC-Editorial-Policy.pdf">editorial policies</a> that make its intentions clear. </p>
<p>A planned <a href="http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2016/08/22/political-week-ahead-sabc-board-set-for-grilling-in-parliament">portfolio committee meeting</a> in August 2016 gives MPs a chance to ask these and additional questions.</p>
<p>For instance, they should ask why under the new policies the role of editor-in-chief has shifted from the chief executive to the chief operating officer, Hlaudi Motsoeneng. Motsoeneng is a highly controversial figure. He is accused of lying about his <a href="http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/How-Hlaudi-Motsoeneng-lied-in-SABC-application-4-Es-and-an-F-in-matric-20150429">qualifications</a>, raising his own salary <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2014-02-17-sabcs-motsoeneng-unlawfully-hiked-salary-finds-madonsela">illegally</a> and pushing for the SABC to play a propaganda role by, for example, calling for <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-30-00-sabc-calls-for-70-happy-news/">70% “good news”</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, MPs need to ask some pointed questions about why the SABC has abandoned an open and transparent system of commissioning programmes that relied on “request for proposals”. Instead it has opted for a <a href="http://city-press.news24.com/News/hlaudi-fires-tv-boss-20160730-2">secretive</a> process that centres on Motsoeneng. It allows select producers to approach him directly, creating fertile ground for dodgy deals and corruption.</p>
<h2>Finances</h2>
<p>The second set of hard questions concerns the SABC’s finances. The broadcaster appears to have hit a cash flow problem and requires a major financial bail-out to continue operating.</p>
<p>Motsoeneng and the new acting CEO James Aguma have approached commercial banks for a <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/investigations/2016/07/10/Cash-starved-SABC-wants-bank-loan-of-R1.5bn">R1.5bn loan</a> to plug a current expenditure shortfall. Without additional borrowing it could soon be unable to pay suppliers and salaries.</p>
<p>The key source of these problems appears to be <a href="http://www.financialmail.co.za/features/2016/07/15/sabc-in-financial-meltdown?platform=hootsuite">financial mismanagement</a>. </p>
<p>Other reasons include ballooning staff and consultant costs, fruitless and wasteful expenditure on legal fees and <a href="http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-sunday-independent/20160717/281779923469622">golden handshakes to staff</a>. </p>
<p>The most recent allegation of mismanagement involves the <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/2016/08/14/Gupta-pal-in-R380m-SABC-licence-fee-deal">awarding of a contract</a> to collect unpaid licence fees. Non-pensioner adults are expected to pay an annual fee of <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/portal/SABC/tvlicquestionanswer">R265</a>. The contract was allegedly awarded to a politically connected company without going out to tender.</p>
<p>Finally, Aguma reportedly plans to <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/2016/08/21/Now-SABC-boss-seeks-bonus-for-Hlaudi">pay Motsoeneng a bonus</a> for a questionable deal he signed with MultiChoice, the subscription television service, in 2013. </p>
<p>In terms of the deal, it was agreed that the SABC would supply MultiChoice’s DSTV platform with a 24 hour news channel, an entertainment channel and access to the SABC’s archives. MultiChoice was to pay R570m for a five year contract. </p>
<p>Industry insiders have argued that the SABC was hugely underpaid. Civil society organisations have instituted legal action against the SABC, <a href="http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-10-06-sabc-multichoice-deal-is-effectively-a-merger/#.V7onjCh96hc">arguing</a> that selling off its archives is equivalent to selling off the family silver. </p>
<p>Parliament needs to ask these hard questions and ensure rigorous follow-up on all the promises the broadcaster makes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Skinner received funding from the Open Society Foundation. She is affiliated with SOS: Support Public Broadcasting and the Right2Know Campaign. </span></em></p>There were high hopes that the SABC would become a true public broadcaster after the end of apartheid when it was used ruthlessly as a propaganda machine. But those hopes have since been dashed.Kate Skinner, PhD student in Media Studies, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.