{"id":685,"date":"2024-04-18T10:47:31","date_gmt":"2024-04-18T14:47:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/?p=685"},"modified":"2024-04-18T10:47:31","modified_gmt":"2024-04-18T14:47:31","slug":"cappelleri2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/2024\/04\/18\/cappelleri2\/","title":{"rendered":"An Imperfect Mirror: How Objectivity Distorts the Reality It Seeks to Reflect"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ethan Cappelleri<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

Instructor’s Introduction<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Ethan Cappelleri wrote this theoretically ambitious paper for WR 152: Rebellious Journalists of American Counterculture, a course in which we challenge journalism\u2019s pragmatic approach and investigate what prompts change to the genre. Inspired by the \u201cfake news\u201d era and an increasingly polarized media industry, Ethan chose to deconstruct one of the most central and pervasive tenets of American journalism: objectivity. Throughout the essay, he dissents against the emphasis many in the media misplace on objective reporting, both conceptually and in practice. And he does so with an incisive philosophical edge, questioning the flagship guidebook written by a titan of the media: Reuters. To say I\u2019m impressed with his insights is an understatement. I\u2019m eager to see how he applies his penchant for critical analysis in the future. <\/span><\/p>\n

Sam Sarkisian<\/strong><\/h6>\n
\n

From the Writer<\/strong><\/h4>\n

While trying to stay informed on the current Gaza War, I became increasingly frustrated with Reuters\u2019 objective reporting. Every article I read brought more confusion: positions from various leaders formed an indecipherable web of contradictions. The journalism theory in my WR 152 class kept this frustration near the front of my mind. After being particularly moved by a class reading, John Hersey\u2019s <\/span>Hiroshima<\/span><\/i>, I questioned the impotence I saw in \u201cimpartial\u201d news. Since the mid-2010s, we\u2019ve carefully avoided \u201cfake news,\u201d but unbiased news is not necessarily accurate. The \u201cbalanced\u201d platform objective reporting creates crumbles when someone has a leg-up. In my paper, I question current objectivity\u2019s efficacy and analyze <\/span>Hiroshima<\/span><\/i> as fact-based yet uncompromising reporting. In the digital age, it has never been easier to spread misinformation. If journalism earnestly wishes to inform, it must adapt. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

An Imperfect Mirror: How Objectivity Distorts the Reality It Seeks to Reflect<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In the mid-2010s, the public\u2019s conception of \u201ctruth\u201d was shattered. Propelled by the confusion of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Brexit, Oxford Dictionaries surprisingly named \u201cpost-truth\u201d 2016\u2019s \u201cWord of the Year.\u201d While not a new term in academia, post-truth\u2019s relevance has become palpable in The Western political landscape. In the aptly titled book <\/span>Post-truth, <\/span><\/i>Lee McIntyre tentatively defines its namesake as \u201cNot so much a claim that truth does not exist as that facts are subordinate to our political point of view\u201d (11). This public shift\u2019s implications are numerous, reshaping modern political discourse and information flow. If we acknowledge this change, we must evaluate journalism\u2019s role as a truth arbiter. Many journalists believe this is indivisible from their profession: in <\/span>The Elements of Journalism<\/span><\/i>, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel (respectively the chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism) argue that \u201cJournalism\u2019s first obligation is to the truth\u201d is journalism\u2019s most important rule (5). Currently, journalists use this ideal in combatting post-truths, but \u201cobjectivity,\u201d presenting information neutrally and factually, remains unquestioned. In this article, I reveal objectivity\u2019s shortcomings in the post-truth era. Following some brief historical context, I argue that Reuters, an international news agency renowned for its impartiality, inefficiently reflects the truth they strive for. Finally, I briefly analyze John Hersey\u2019s rhetoric in <\/span>Hiroshima, <\/span><\/i>demonstrating that factual reporting can be achieved without objectivity. While it desperately seeks the truth, objectivity distorts the reality it aims to reflect.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cJournalistic Truth\u201d: Definition and Historical Context<\/b><\/p>\n

Many journalists view revealing \u201ctruth\u201d as integral to their profession but fail to define it, instead pursuing objectivity. An analysis of news stories about killed-in-action U.S. journalists notes an enduring sentiment that the victims sacrificed their lives to \u201c[bear] witness and [pursue] the truth\u201d (McCaffrey). Journalists seemingly ascribe this ideal great importance: war journalist Martha Gellhorn once thought of \u201cjournalism as a guiding light,\u201d though she later changed her position (1). Brian and Matthew Winston, a father and son media-criticism duo, point out the vagueness of seeking truth, especially as an opposing force to falsehoods. The Winstons suggest (rather harshly) that Kovach and Rosenstiel incorrectly conflate objectivity and truth: \u201cAs a consequence of their allergic reaction to epistemology and their need to be, in some way, useful, \u2018truth\u2019–a truth, \u2018journalistic truth\u2019\u2013becomes glossed as \u2018objectivity\u2019\u201d (159). While objectivity is a method for truth, confusing the two assigns objectivity the same heroic connotation and commanding power, shielding it from criticism. Ironically, Kovach and Rosenstiel lament this \u201cmangling of objectivity\u201d but proselytize truth and create ambiguous guidelines for its achievement (6). However, this contradiction should be attributed to the valor that \u201ctruth\u201d implies, not Kovach and Rosenstiel\u2019s carelessness. Truth is finicky: there have been many attempts throughout history to create a working definition, but few agree on obtaining it (if even possible).<\/span><\/p>\n

Journalism must be understood as a nebulous field rather than an unchanging, primordial force for distributing facts. Objectivity was not present at journalism\u2019s birth but conceived as a reaction to another practice, sensationalism; attributed to Joseph Pulitzer and <\/span>The New York World<\/span><\/i>, sensationalism emphasized evocative reporting and shocking descriptions over facts (Daly 122). Sensationalism has roots just as deep as objectivity\u2013both were founded at the end of the 19th century, so neither can claim seniority. Attempts to capture journalism\u2019s enduring spirit are fruitless against its constant flow (something about stepping into rivers), yielding ahistorical and all-encompassing statements: \u201cJournalism provides something unique to a culture: independent, reliable, accurate, and comprehensive information that citizens require to be free\u201d (Kovach and Rosenstiel 3). Kovach and Rosenstiel\u2019s \u201celements\u201d capture an objective method, not journalism\u2019s essence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Challenges to Reuters\u2019 \u201cStandards & Values\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

Objectivity requires a verifiable method to claim to reflect \u201ctruth.\u201d There is no dominant guidebook, but all objective methods value transparency and attempt to justify their continued existence. <\/span>The Elements of Journalism <\/span><\/i>is an admitted attempt to organize, but practices vary between journalists, agencies, and publications. To evaluate objectivity\u2019s efficacy, we will examine a formidable and contemporary method: Reuters\u2019 \u201cStandards & Values.\u201d As previously stated, one method is not dominant; however, Reuters considers its model notable enough that journalists must maintain its good name: \u201cCorrespondents should say nothing that could\u2026undermine our reputation for objectivity and impartiality\u2026\u201d (Standards & Values). While analyzing these \u201c10 Hallmarks of Reuters\u2019 Journalism,\u201d I found a line that I believe concisely and comprehensively represents Reuters\u2019–and objectivity\u2019s\u2013 well-meaning intent: \u201cAccuracy means that our images and stories must reflect reality\u201d (\u201cStandards & Values\u201d). In this section, I examine if Reuters’ principles actualize its values and whether they effectively conquer post-truth\u2019s challenges. Furthermore, I mainly investigated Reuters\u2019 methodology instead of their published work. My exhibit evidence emphasizes Reuters\u2019 coverage of the ongoing 2023 Israel-Palestine conflict, which may narrow my analysis\u2019 application.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reuters articles are engineered as remarkably concise, neutral-toned, and uncontroversial. This tight structure allows little space for analysis\u2013which Reuters explicitly prohibits (they strictly divide news and opinion pieces). One principle is a concise order for \u201cbalanced coverage\u201d: \u201cTake no sides, tell all sides\u201d (\u201cStandards and Values\u201d). In an effort for fairness, the media will report \u201cboth sides\u201d of a conflict. This equal treatment creates a \u201cfalse equivalency,\u201d depicting both sides as credible despite one being needlessly oppositional (McIntyre 77). McIntyre\u2019s examples center on the media\u2019s coverage of controversial science\u2013global warming, vaccines, and cigarettes\u2013but the implications are far-reaching: corporations fund alternative research and argue that their findings are deliberately ignored if the media does not cover their dubious results (78-80). Governments also employ manufactured doubt to control potentially problematic narratives. Reuters attempts to reconcile the ironic inequality in balanced coverage, suggesting fringe sources and atrocity perpetrators \u201cmay warrant less space,\u201d but ends that same paragraph with, \u201cWe have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side\u201d (\u201cStandards & Values\u201d). These statements are incompatible with each other. Despite the method\u2019s concern with perfecting truth, it assigns an ambiguous guideline. This contradiction demonstrates objectivity\u2019s struggle with logical consistency when seeking complete neutrality.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Reuters\u2019 ambiguous quoting guidelines unwittingly distort rather than represent reality. Through editing, Journalism\u2019s quoting process implicitly maps bias onto reality. This approach is troublesome when Quoting is Objectivity\u2019s \u201cbread and butter\u201d: to Reuters, quotes are \u201csacrosanct\u201d and dominate their articles (\u201cStandards & Values\u201d). On the surface, direct quotes are the closest reporting can get to reality: they come directly from the source, and the journalist simply transfers the information; however, quotes (as they appear in articles) are rarely exact replications (Haapanen). Lauri Haapanen explores the quoting process and its relationship to transparency in her paper \u201cProblematising the restoration of trust through transparency: Focusing on quoting.\u201d In her analysis, Haapanen found that \u201craw\u201d quotes undergo much tweaking before they reach their published form (Haapanen). Filtering words through another\u2019s judgment makes bias unavoidable\u2013-subjectively editing quotes is incompatible with portraying reality: a journalist manually truncates quotes and selects the necessary contextual description (\u201cStandards & Values\u201d). Concision is helpful so long as the product represents the speaker\u2019s intended meaning; however, even minuscule omissions can alter a contentious quote\u2019s meaning. Reuters dedicates an elaborate section to editing potentially controversial quotes: <\/span><\/p>\n

“It is not our job to make people look good by cleaning up inelegant turns of phrase, nor is it our job to expose them to ridicule by running such quotes. In most cases, this dilemma can be resolved by paraphrase and reported speech. Where it cannot, reporters should consult a more senior journalist to discuss whether the quote can be run verbatim.” (\u201cStandards & Values\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite quoting\u2019s importance, this is a weak guideline\u2013a vague suggestion not to make anyone look too good or too bad. While not immediately alarming, paraphrasing and reported speech are not practical solutions. Reuters\u2019 journalists must navigate a neutrality obstacle course when quoting, illustrating Horace Greeley\u2019s view of neutrality as a \u201cgag order\u201d: The self-censoring journalist gags themselves and deprives the audience (Winston and Winston 106). Accurately depicting reality demands a complete representation, but these practices are indivisible from alteration. Subduing a quote\u2013even for neutrality\u2019s sake\u2013and ignoring analysis leaves the reader with a reductive and digestible understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n

This combination of diluted reality and unfounded balance facilitates \u201cconfirmation bias\u201d and then \u201cweaponized doubt.\u201d \u201cConfirmation bias\u201d is frequently used (outside psychology) when describing the American media\u2019s recent polarization(think CNN vs. Fox), where individuals tend to watch openly partisan news aligned with their worldview. McIntyre cites Rush Limbaugh\u2019s broadcasts as an example of people seeking alternative truths that support their political beliefs in response to a challenging and unbiased reality (68). This unfortunate tendency is well-documented, but objectivity\u2019s insidious role in confirmation bias remains overlooked. Confirmation bias works best when information can be comfortably assimilated into one\u2019s worldview. If faced with dissonant information, the viewer will either flee and find a source they preemptively agree with or adjust their worldview accordingly to incorporate this new information; the critical thinking route is preferable, yet its difficulty causes the former\u2019s popularity. Reuters often clarifies whether the information is uncertain, but these concessions only mildly temper whom they platform: the statement, \u201cIt was not possible to verify the material independently,\u201d is an insufficient challenge to a dubious source\u2019s ardent supporter (Blair, Macswan, Wallis). This qualification is a \u201cnothing\u201d statement to these highly partisan individuals. Information does not need to be verified by an independent party when there is faith in the speaker\u2019s authority. If anything, even this good-faith concession can trigger dissonance: McIntyre attributes Rush Limbaugh\u2019s success to a conservative audience alienated by \u201cwhat they [<\/span>perceived<\/span><\/i>] to be the political bias of\u2026news coverage\u201d (68).\u00a0 This \u201cunbiased platform\u201d awarded to parties aids \u201cmanufactured doubt.\u201d It originated as a term to describe the strategy of companies producing alternative and manipulated research that contradicts negative scientific criticism. The most glaring example is Big Tobacco\u2019s reaction to the discovery of smoking\u2019s long-term and shocking effects (McIntyre 22). A study examining Big Tobacco\u2019s and other industries\u2019 use of manufactured doubt found journalists struggled when challenging these doubts if reality opposed public opinion (Goldberg & Vandenberg). Manufactured doubt facilitated by confirmation bias threatens objectivity\u2019s accuracy: if the method can not challenge falsehoods, it can not verify its \u201ctruth\u2019s\u201d purity.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Reuters\u2019 \u201cStandards & Values\u201d weaken their articles\u2019 informing power: objectivity\u2019s failures are evident when covering polarizing topics. The 2023 Israel-Hamas War is the most contemporary example of a major world conflict; one major event, the bombing of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza, continues to be shrouded in uncertainty. Both Israel and Hamas claimed the other was responsible for the attack while journalists scrambled to verify the claims. Exacerbating the chaos, other world leaders\u2013allies and foes\u2013joined the contradictory voices of Israel and Hamas. Reuters summarizes this cacophonous choir in an article titled \u201cGaza hospital blast: what we know about the explosion,\u201d correspondents attempt to corral up-to-date information on the incident but inadvertently further murky the waters; however, In the article, claims from Israel are only lightly challenged:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

“The military also released an audio file and a transcript of what it said was a conversation between two Hamas militants saying an Islamic Jihad rocket had misfired. It was not possible to verify the material independently. The audio was edited including with bleeps to obscure words and names.” (Blair, MacSwan, Wallis)<\/span><\/p>\n

The article simply relays what Israel claimed without linking the audio file or transcript. Reuters indicates where a claim can not verified but does not go further with its criticism. This hesitance of judgment platforms this bold claim while slightly qualifying it. Due to their concision, Reuters does not explore how the Israeli Defense Force could have obtained this audio, and the absence of criticism emboldens these claims. Reuters indicates that the audio\u2019s origin can not be verified, but still published an announcement: \u201cThe military\u2026released an audio file\u2026between two Hamas militants saying an Islamic Jihad rocket had misfired\u201d (Blair, MacSwan, Wallis). Disagreeing individuals may instantly assimilate this information, glossing over Reueters\u2019 impotent fact-check.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Reuters\u2019 \u201cStandards & Values\u201d illustrate that objective reporting is weak against and propagates post-truth devices. Although Reuters earnestly seeks reality, post-truth and dissonance prey on these good-faith ideas. Reuters\u2019 \u201cbalanced\u201d coverage creates false equivalencies, misrepresenting a topic\u2019s discourse. Partisans use this unearned platform as a mouthpiece, having their claims disseminated by Reuters. Their excellent concision and hesitant refutations allow polarized individuals to absorb these claims readily; Reuters subdues both their quotes and analysis, leaving only a \u201cpoint-parroting.\u201d The standards are an experiment in laissez-faire reporting: become reality\u2019s vessel\u2013let the news report itself.<\/span><\/p>\n

How <\/b>Hiroshima <\/i><\/b>Reflects Reality<\/b><\/p>\n

Objectivity\u2019s contributions are not entirely negative: instituting a fallible reporting method encourages criticism and transparency. Other journalists have incorporated objectivity\u2019s provisions without an incessant search for truth. John Hersey combines this seemingly contradictory idea in his book (originally article) <\/span>Hiroshima, <\/span><\/i>detailing the first atomic bomb\u2019s aftermath<\/span>. <\/span><\/i>Hersey interviewed many survivors, ultimately retelling the experience of just six. The result is a neutral-in-tone account of arguably the most chilling event in human history: Journalist and historian Christopher Daly describes Hersey\u2019s correspondence as a \u201chyperfactual tale of immense suffering\u201d (283). <\/span>Hiroshima <\/span><\/i>faithfully tells a horrifying and evocative narrative without compromising its credibility.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Hersey achieves this balance by removing himself from the story and uniting the collected testimonies, emphasizing first-hand experience. For instance, gruesome scenes are relayed matter-of-factly and interpolated with Hersey\u2019s contextual information: \u201cThe fluid from their melted eyes had run down their cheeks. (They must have had their faces upturned when the bomb went off; perhaps they were anti-aircraft personnel)\u201d (Hersey). Ignoring this shocking description is impossible. Even the most patriotic would find justifying this scene difficult. Hersey embraces perception\u2019s inherent bias with little quoting. He avoids the pitfalls of journalism\u2019s typical editing, only attributing exact words like \u201cit hurts!\u201d (Hersey). Mary McCarthy argues that this survivor-centric narrative minimized the government\u2019s role, but an authority\u2019s presence could have diluted the survivor\u2019s stories (367). McCarthy forgets that <\/span>Hiroshima\u2019<\/span><\/i>s success lies in its accessibility: it eschews political criticism (which can be quite an undertaking), showing all readers\u2013of all political leanings\u2013the atomic bomb\u2019s unadulterated consequences. Hersey does not give the U.S. government a defensive platform, side-stepping their<\/span> self-serving and potentially inaccurate justifications.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Hersey reconciles objective reporting\u2019s role as an imperfect \u201cmirror\u201d by translating the interviewees\u2019 reality. Hersey knew this was not his story but<\/span> recognized its significance and consolidated poignant emotional and material anguish into an accessible medium. Although this long-form feature is stylistically and structurally different from a typical Reuters article, <\/span>Hiroshima<\/span><\/i> resolves many of objectivity\u2019s limitations, ultimately becoming \u201cpart of the worldview of most people on the planet\u201d without slipping into bias or restrictive objectivity (Daly 283).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n

Objectivity paradoxically propagates bias while insufficiently addressing post-truth issues. Through analyzing Reuters\u2019 prominent objective method, we found multiple policies (balanced coverage, modified quoting, absent analysis) with obfuscating effects (false equivalency, confirmation bias, manufactured doubt) that murky the truth objectivity esteems. John Hersey\u2019s <\/span>Hiroshima <\/span><\/i>was not timely or succinct (released a year after the bomb dropped, totaling approximately 31,000 words), but it is uncompromising in portraying an uncomfortable reality without objectivity\u2019s regulations. My intention is not to suggest Reuters conceive a weekly \u201c<\/span>Hiroshima\u201d <\/span><\/i>but to spotlight the misguided insistence on impartiality and its insidious consequences. Information has never been more abundant, but we often find ourselves uncertain and misled; however, those who earnestly seek truth may inadvertently aid the production of misinformation. Journalism must evolve in this hyper-polarized climate\u2013thankfully, it always does. Despite the Winstons\u2019 passionate criticism, they believe in Journalism\u2019s plasticity: \u201cAll but insurmountable problems which journalism faces can be overcome, once they are properly understood\u201d (201). Journalism will only become obsolete when the curiosity that propels it dies; while sometimes misled, objectivity\u2019s relentless pursuit of the truth indicates that journalism has a long, long future.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n

Blair, Macswan, Wallis. \u201cGaza Hospital Blast: What We Know about the Explosion.\u201d <\/span>Reuters<\/span><\/i>, 18 <\/span>Oct. 2023, <\/span>www.reuters.com\/world\/middle-east\/gaza-hospital-blast-what-we-know-about-explosion-2023-10-18\/<\/a>. Accessed 1 Nov. 2023.<\/span><\/p>\n

Daly, Christopher B. \u201cCrusaders and Conservatives, 1875\u20131912: Journalism in Yellow and<\/span><\/p>\n

Gray.\u201d <\/span>Covering America: A Narrative History of a Nation\u2019s Journalism<\/span><\/i>, University of <\/span>Massachusetts Press, 2012, pp. 112\u201350. <\/span>JSTOR<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/j.ctt5vk2pq.9<\/span><\/a>. <\/span>Accessed 16 Nov. 2023.<\/span><\/p>\n

Gellhorn, Martha. <\/span>The Face of War<\/span><\/i>. Atlantic Monthly Press, 1988.<\/span><\/p>\n

Goldberg, Rebecca F, and Laura N Vandenberg. \u201cThe Science of Spin: Targeted Strategies to <\/span>Manufacture Doubt with Detrimental Effects on Environmental and Public Health.\u201d <\/span>Environmental Health<\/span><\/i>, vol. 20, no. 1, 26 Mar. 2021, <\/span>ehjournal.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12940-021-00723-0#citeas<\/span><\/a>,<\/span><\/p>\n

https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12940-021-00723-0<\/a>. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.<\/span><\/p>\n

Haapanen, L. (2022). Problematising the restoration of trust through transparency: Focusing on <\/span>quoting. <\/span>Journalism<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>23<\/span><\/i>(4), 875-891. <\/span>https:\/\/doi-org.ezproxy.bu.edu\/10.1177\/1464884920934236<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Hersey, John. \u201cHiroshima.\u201d <\/span>The New Yorker<\/span><\/i>, The New Yorker, 24 Aug. 1946, <\/span>www.newyorker.com\/magazine\/1946\/08\/31\/hiroshima<\/a>. Accessed 2 Nov. 2023.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel. <\/span>The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know <\/span><\/i>and the Public Should Expect<\/span><\/i>. 4th ed., Crown, 2021.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

McCarthy, Mary. \u201cThe Hiroshima \u2018New Yorker.\u2019\u201d <\/span>Politics<\/span><\/i>, Nov. 1946, p. 367.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

McIntyre, Lee. <\/span>Post-Truth<\/span><\/i>, MIT Press, 2018.<\/span> ProQuest Ebook Central<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>https:\/\/ebookcentral.proquest.com\/lib\/bu\/detail.action?docID=5294979<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Raymond McCaffrey (2023) News Stories About Fallen Journalists: The Institutional History of <\/span>the Hero Myth in Journalistic Practice, Journalism Practice, 17:7, 1428-1444, DOI: <\/span>10.1080\/17512786.2021.1998791<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cStandards & Values | Style Guide | Reuters.\u201d <\/span>Reuters News Agency<\/span><\/i>, 12 May 2022, <\/span>www.reutersagency.com\/en\/about\/standards-values\/#:~:text=A%20Reuters%20journalist%20sws%20integrity,our%20sources%20and%20our%20readers<\/a>. Accessed 1 Nov. 2023.<\/span><\/p>\n

Winston, Brian, and Winston, Matthew. <\/span>The Roots of Fake News : Objecting to Objective <\/span><\/i>Journalism<\/span><\/i>. Routledge, 2021.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Ethan Cappelleri<\/strong> is a Boston University sophomore studying Mathematics and Computer Science with a minor in Music. He is a New Jersey resident and misses the still air. Although he writes little more than code in class now, his research has been a strong foundation for understanding the consequences of artificial intelligence and online communication. He would like to thank Professor Sam Sarkisian for igniting his passion for this project.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ethan Cappelleri Instructor’s Introduction Ethan Cappelleri wrote this theoretically ambitious paper for WR 152: Rebellious Journalists of American Counterculture, a course in which we challenge journalism\u2019s pragmatic approach and investigate what prompts change to the genre. Inspired by the \u201cfake news\u201d era and an increasingly polarized media industry, Ethan chose to deconstruct one of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19937,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/685"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19937"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=685"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/685\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":787,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/685\/revisions\/787"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/deerfield\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}