The Fingers Behind the Tweets
Over the last few decades, Web 2.0 has taken control of the world.
With computers now the size of a box instead of the size of a room, access to the web is higher than ever before. A quick reach into your pocket and entering of a password lets people have the world at the tip of their fingers.
Specifically looking at social media, the use of apps to reach the world and get information has exponentially grown in recent years.
According to the Pew Research Center, in March 2005, only 5% of U.S. adults said they used at least one social media site. By February 2021, this number had jumped to 71%.
With this massive growth comes major concerns about the use of social media to spread hateful messages and engage in discourse, discourse which sometimes may be unsafe for many.
More recently, Twitter and Facebook have been used to spread messages of hate and organize protests.
While some of these protests are positive and result in needed social change, others, like the insurrection of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, cause violence and harm which may not have been present without the existence of Web 2.0.
As a journalism student, the growth of citizen journalism since the start of Web 2.0 has intrigued me greatly.
With the “fight to be first”, far too often the news shared on Twitter and other social media platforms is false.
People looking to be the first to break the news fail to fact check and corroborate stories.
Additionally, an interesting phenomenon has occurred in the journalism field since the development of Web 2.0.
Historically, the rule of three was common across all newsrooms, requiring three source verification before publishing a story. This meant that journalists were required to verify information with three reliable sources before publishing any information.
Now, some journalism organizations are using other news organizations as a source. Many times you will see a line such as “The New York Times says” or “According to The Washington Post.”
The lack of verification of information is both lazy and dangerous, spreading information without validating it.
The best way to demonstrate the phenomenon of mass misinformation is by showing examples.
A few years ago, information began to spread that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the owners of a pizza place which was a front for a pedophilia ring.
Starting on Twitter after the sharing of emails by WikiLeaks, this claim began to spread like wildfire.
As the information spread, people began to get violent and one man was even arrested for showing up at a pizza place in Washington D.C. for bringing an assault riffle and claiming he was there to investigate the claims of a pedophilia ring in the restaurant.
Pope Francis Endorses Donald Trump
In 2016, WTOE 5 News, a website which calls itself “a fantasy news website for pet owners”, published a story claiming that Pope Francis has endorsed Donald Trump for President of the United States.
Word of this “endorsement” quickly spread on Twitter and republican media outlets began to share this, causing millions to believe it was true.
Ultimately, Pope Francis was a critic of Donald Trump and this story, which was originally written as a satirical piece, was debunked.
Many people became confused when stories later came out about how Pope Francis did not like him, never hearing that this story was untrue in the first place.
RuPaul Assaulted by Trump in the 90s
And last but not least, my personal favorite, a satirical site posted a story in which they alleged that Drag Queen RuPaul claimed Donald Trump had inappropriately touched him in the 1990s.
Generating over 280,000 Facebook engagements, this fake story showcases just how quick people can be to assume when a page labeled “news” shares information.
These three cases are just three of millions of pieces of misinformation that have been spread since the rise of social media and Web 2.0.
Overall, one of the largest issues which comes from this is that people sometimes never find out the truth.
This misinformation can be spread and perpetuated over the course of decades without any intervention. Many people will see information, take it at face value, believe it to be the whole truth, and then never find out that the information they thought was true was in fact a lie or misinformation.
With the growth of misinformation, the responsibility of determining if claims are fact or fiction is now on those consuming the information.
To be a conscientious digital citizen, people must not just believe information when they see it, but instead verify and confirm it through multiple trustworthy sources before believing it.
This responsibility, however, also falls on the writers who curate content for websites and social media pages. Before sharing information or writing a claim, it is key that writers verify this information.
Especially in the case of journalists, people often believe anything a writer says online. This power is dangerous, especially when it comes to controversial topics, such as politics.
As someone who wants to go into political reporting myself, I am always careful to ensure that I present the facts in as simple a way as possible to ensure that people can make their own decision.
By presenting facts first in an easy way to understand, reporters can ensure that people get the full and truthful story, not information which can be misconstrued.
However, the responsibility of spreading factual information thus falls on journalists and writers, not just readers. Yes, readers should always fact check information that they are told, but journalists and writers who have ethics should never provide incorrect information and should always confirm it before sharing it.
With all of that said and all of the lessons and advice about Web 2.0 stated, let’s talk about some of the biggest lessons learned in this class, Digital Writing for Social Action.
Throughout this semester, many conversations were had about Web 2.0, information, social media, and fact checking. Some lessons stuck with me more than others and are things I will always take with me.
First, although the message that Wikipedia was bad was said to me for my entire life, I learned that it is not bad.
Yes, the public can post whatever they would like on Wikipedia and not always be fact checked.
However, the citations and hyperlinks on Wikipedia often can lead readers to great sources and a wealth of information.
Next, the algorithms used by Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms can often times be responsible for the spread of misinformation and feeding of misinformation to people.
When someone who leans far right or far left clicks on some posts more than others or engages with posts more than others, they will often be showed more of those posts.
This cycle perpetuates lies and enables the continual spread of misinformation.
Additionally, the discussions around hyperlinks and how these hyperlinks can make people believe information even when it is not true was very interesting.
For example, a hyperlink to an untrustworthy website may make people believe false information more unless they click the hyperlink, examine the website, look at the funding of the website, and examine the components of the website to ensure it is trustworthy.
Overall, this class was extremely useful, especially as a journalist. Being a journalism student, I don’t often talk about my opinion or use my words with the intent to ignite change in the world.
Being able to talk about my opinions and beliefs while still writing in a journalistic style and using evidence to back my claims was an interesting experience for me.
Interestingly enough, I don’t like to talk about my opinions on a matter that often. Whether this is a result of being a journalism student and being conditioned not to talk about my opinions or being unwilling to talk about my opinion due to my interest in political science and liking to talk about others opinions remains unknown.
As a political science major, I love being able to examine the opinions and beliefs of others and analyze them to better understand how a topic or policy may progress in the future.
Taking this research and putting it into a journalistic piece and using it to tell a story is my passion.
My passion for telling the stories of others caused some personal conflict while taking this class, as I did not like to talk about my opinion and often wrote my writer’s blogs in a journalistic style.
However, this forced me out of my comfort zone at times and I was forced to find a balance between journalistic writing and writing for social action. This is one reason I decided to use a fake account for my social media campaign for the short form feature story.
Overall, this class was extremely beneficial personally and professionally and I am very grateful that I decided to take it.
