Abstract
Like many of you, I have watched with interest the media coverage of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Journalism has always played an important role in disseminating information during times of war. But in this era of real-time information accessibility, the need for accurate, truthful and quality information is more important than ever. In some ways, journalists are fighting their own war of misinformation as they combat against a flood of fake content that can easily get out of hand if it’s shared without being vetted properly.
For instance, a recent Poynter report shared several examples of credible news organizations caught in a battle over disinformation surrounding the Russia–Ukraine conflict. In the aftermath of a deadly missile strike on a rail station in eastern Ukraine in April 2022, a nearly 90-second video surfaced with claims that Ukrainian forces bombed their own station. Branded with the BBC News logo, the fake video spread quickly and widely, with Russian state media broadcasting it on television and the internet. It was also shared through several pro-Kremlin channels of the messaging app Telegram (McCarthy, 2022).
The BBC News press office quickly discredited the video report on its Twitter account: “We are aware of a fake video with BBC News branding suggesting Ukraine was responsible for last week’s missile attack on Kramatorsk train station. The BBC is taking action to have the video removed” (BBC News Press Team, 2022).
Similar attempts have been to circulate false narratives from BBC, CNN and other international news agencies engaged in covering the conflict. This problem is exacerbated through social media channels, as users across the world are eager and anxious for any information about the conflict, often sharing things without giving it a second thought. “People feel helpless, they feel like they want to do something and so they’re online scrolling and they’re sharing things that they think are true because they’re trying to be helpful,” Claire Wardle, a Brown University professor and U.S. director at misinformation-fighting nonprofit First Draft News recently told CNN. “[But] in these moments of upheaval and crisis, this is the time that we are worst at figuring out what’s true or false” (Duffy & Metz, 2022).
The rising tide of misinformation in the days following the start of the war led to the creation of ukrainefacts.org, a public website updated by journalists in 70 countries mean to debunk war-related claims. Clara Jimenez Cruz, the co-founder and CEO of Madilta.es, a Spanish nonprofit fact-checking organization, helped launch the website. In an interview not long after the launch, Cruz said this began with the creation of a database that allowed more than 100 fact-checkers to start collaborating with her organization. “Mis- and disinformation circulates very fast in every crisis and one of the ways to limit its impact is to debunk it as quickly as possible,” she said (Suarez, 2022).
The war over misinformation may seem like a never-ending conflict, where a victory for journalists is always out of reach. However, that does not dismiss the important part they play in providing information that is truthful, meaningful and influential, especially in times of war. That’s also why there will continue to be a need for quality academic research that provides important insight and direction for journalists grappling with these disturbing trends of misinformation dissemination.
Summary of This Issue
In this issue, you will find fascinating research exploring important political and social issues.
First, Brooke W. McKeever, Minhee Choi, Denetra Walker and Robert McKeever address the topic of reframing gun violence as a public health issue. They used a survey to explore frame salience and frame adoption within the lens of media advocacy. Through this survey, they found that gun control and gun rights frames are salient and that television, newspaper and social media are the most popular sources of gun violence information. They concluded that the “process of media informing public perceptions and those perceptions informing policy is critical to understanding media advocacy, and in this case, possible past forward for communicating about the issue of gun violence.”
Jennifer Brannock Cox examines news coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement and protests during summer 2020. In an analysis of nearly 300 stories posted by the six most viewed U.S. news outlets on Facebook, Cox found that the stories mostly framed protesters positively and police negatively. She suggests the findings point to a possible “protest paradigm shift-in-progress” as journalists adjust their strategies amid changing news audience ideologies. “As news organizations clamor for page views in an increasingly overcrowded field, it is possible journalists will alter their norms and routines even further to align with or against social justice movements and participants in their drive to grow loyal audiences,” she said.
Jae Sik Ha explores how several factors, including national history, national interests and journalistic views, influence the coverage of Arab Spring by news organizations in the United States and South Korea. A content analysis of stories from outlets in each country revealed some differences in news sourcing. Specifically, U.S. media relied primarily on Arab opposition figures and civilians, whereas South Korean newspapers relied heavily on foreign media. Ha concludes that the reporting in each country was “significantly molded by each nation’s dominant ideologies, national interest and journalistic conventions, rather than being a ‘true’ representation of events themselves.”
In their study, Arthur D. Santana and Toby Hopp discuss why certain people are more drawn to uncivil comments than civil ones. Participants were invited to read three different stories related to politics and impeachment, along with authentic comments in various formats. Using eye-tracking technology, Santana and Hopp compared participants’ reaction to civil and uncivil comments based on personality traits. They found that an attraction to reading uncivil comments is contingent on personality traits. They conclude that “News readers are not a monothetic group; their personality characteristics determines their engagement with the news product, including the accompanying commenting forums that the newspapers provide.”
John Kirch investigates the role of news organizations in covering third-party candidates by analyzing the coverage of the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election, which included three candidates—one Republican, one Democrat and one Libertarian. Specifically, he compared the volume and type of coverage for all candidates and explored whether newspapers in Virginia supported, opposed or ignored the Libertarian’s inclusion in debates. The results, which Kirch states are “mixed and nuanced,” also “undermine journalists’ contention that they mainly ignore third-party candidates because minor-party contenders are not qualified or fail to run serious campaigns.”
Finally, Deepika Rose Alex and Sublin Paul use a case study of Deepika, a Malayalam-language daily newspaper published in south Indian state Kerala, to examine the relationship between religion and news media. Through their analysis, they show that in many ways, the news functions as religion for the newspaper’s readers and they “mediate the communal longings of the believers”:
Both the newspaper and religion told stories and filled the rather empty time of the readers with new activities, leading to the formation of social practices, from public discussions in teashops to consulting dictionaries in private.
I offer my thanks to those who have contributed to this issue. I hope you enjoy reading it.