I
spent
the
majority
of
my
Winter
Break
watching
CNN
while
doing some reading. It felt
like every few seconds, I
was hit with a “breaking”
story that made me turn my
eyes toward the television.
Then, I was spun around by a
ringing notification from the
New York Times telling me
there’s another story I have
to read. Before I can even
open the app, I would get an
email telling me that there’s
another
news
story
that
requires my attention.
Could it have been a big
story that’s just developing
and
requires
the
public’s
immediate attention in every
medium? Unfortunately no.
All three of these stories
were either day-to-day events
in the Trump White House
(a press conference was just
starting), an article from
The New York Times about
a diabetes epidemic in India
and a daily briefing on politics
from The Hill. And yet all
of these stories attempted
to convince me to read their
story first by parading around
as critically important to my
political awareness.
I’ve
always
questioned
the efficacy of a journalist
slamming a symbolic fist on
the table in an attempt to
change the reader’s mind.
In today’s day and age, we
have more information at our
fingertips than ever before,
but that doesn’t mean that
we’ve become adept at sifting
through this information to
create coherent messages that
can influence opinion. For
instance,
while
magazines
can celebrate the news media
influencing public opinion,
we are left with marginal
gains at the most. About one
in 50 people with access
to these particular stories
had
ideological
shifts
in
the direction of the opinion
articles they read.
This
requires
an
astonishing feat that isn’t
quite
acknowledged:
A
journalist
does
not
only
need
an
attentive
reader,
but a reader who is willing
to comprehend the article,
spend
cognitive
resources
negotiating this article with
existing opinions and trust
this source as credible enough
to influence their opinion.
In stark contrast to the
late 2000s that suggested
conventional
news
was
dying,
we
are
consuming
news through our mobile
devices
more
than
ever
before. The Pew Research
Center suggests nearly two
out of 10 people consume
news often because they can
freely access it through social
media outlets and seven out
of 10 get at least some of their
news from social media. But
as columnist Farhad Manjoo
eloquently
put
it,
we’re
confined by our technology
into somewhat comfortable
prisons. Your “new” devices,
websites and apps compete
with the “old” television and
radio with daily alerts trying
to get you to pay attention in
ways you may never have before.
In order to compete, news
organizations have increased
“breaking news” stories that
have no reason to be called as
such. Sarah Huckabee Sanders
getting up on a podium isn’t
news;
perhaps
what
she
says on that particular day
might be, but I refuse to
believe that everything in
a press conference is worth
streaming live on television
or on Facebook live feeds. Nor
is it worth calling, in totality,
breaking news.
In finding ways to get
viewers,
journalists
have
given up on a key tenant
of
reporting:
interpretive
journalism.
This
kind
of
reporting
ensures
that
viewers get news that matters
and
protects
journalism
from a legislator or president
using
them
to
become
a
press release. In this way,
the CNNs and the New York
Times of the world have
slowly spiraled
downward
to become another arm of a
presidential administration.
Not all hope is lost, though.
There
is
still
important
local and national reporting
that is helping us shape our
perceptions
on
a
variety
of issues. There is great
reporting
about
systemic
issues of sexual assault. The
Michigan
Daily
has
kept
the University of Michigan
abreast in news regarding
Richard
Spencer,
the
tax
plan and net neutrality. The
news still has the ability to
garner
interest
in
stories
that previously weren’t being
talked about, and they can
help us find standards with
which to judge our candidates
and individuals in office.
Long-form
reporting,
especially
when
done
about
topical issues in ways that
provide
substantive
evidence
and potential policy solutions,
can help fight the breaking
news culture across a variety
of challenges, but consumers
(like those of you reading this
article) need to acknowledge
faux breaking news when it
happens. Demand better of your
journalistic outlets and consume
news that not only informs, but
provides deeper insight into
issues you might care about. Is an
outlet not doing that for you? Find
a better one, and we can combat
the 86,400-second news cycle
that has become so pervasive in
our everyday lives.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Tuesday, January 16, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
The perils of breaking-news culture
IAN LEACH | COLUMN
“News
organizations
have increased
‘breaking news’
stories that have
no reason to be
called as such. ”
WANT TO JOIN OUR TEAM?
Come to The Michigan Daily’s mass meetings!
Mass meetings will be located in the newsroom at 420
Maynard on Jan. 16 and 17 at 7 p.m. Hope to see you there!
FROM THE DAILY
IFC reinstatement needs transparency
O
n Jan. 3, the Interfraternity Council at the University of Michigan lifted
their two-month self-imposed suspension and are gradually restarted
social activities and formal rush. The suspension was first enacted after
troubling allegations of sexual assault, hazing and binge drinking surfaced.
In November, The Michigan
Daily
Editorial
Board
called on the IFC to address
systemic problems among its
fraternities. At the time of
publication, we hoped the IFC
would increase transparency
regarding these very serious
issues. However, questions
remain unanswered after this
reinstatement. In order to
prove the effectiveness and
commitment to change from
this self-imposed suspension,
we urge the IFC to release the
action plans and any records
of alleged misconduct of any
fraternities. Doing so would
not only reaffirm trust but also
show sincerity in their reforms.
We would appreciate if
the IFC took the time during
these
past
three
months
to
think
introspectively
about how the culture of
their institution led to these
widespread
abuses,
and
what could be done to repair
the culture. Yet the only
information the IFC has been
willing to release publicly
is that a fraternity’s social
privileges
are
contingent
upon
the
successful
implementation of specific
individualized action plans.
While we hope that these
action plans are sufficient to
address the IFC’s underlying
institutional
issues,
the
campus community is unable
to
judge
for
themselves
whether
steps
taken
are
sufficient to ensure overall
community safety.
Fraternities are in a unique
position to impact meaningful
change on their members
and the campus as a whole,
yet despite espousing values
of brotherhood and strong
moral character, actions by
fraternities in this academic
year alone prove antithetical
to these standards. Recent
severe incidents regarding
fraternities
both
at
the
University
and
at
other
universities throughout the
country underscore that the
IFC must demonstrate they
are taking the necessary steps
to safeguard the wellbeing
of their members and the
greater student community.
Suspending social activities
for two months, and then not
releasing plans demonstrating
that they have identified and
are attempting to remedy
institutional
shortcomings,
is insufficient for reassuring
the
community
that
the
institution has changed for
the better.
We
are
especially
concerned
the
proposed
institutional
action
plans
were not enough to convince
the national organization of
Zeta Beta Tau to allow the
fraternity to remain at the
University.
ZBT’s
chapter
was
shut
down
for
the
fourth time in its history at
the University of Michigan
with
prior
removals
in
2000, 2006 and 2012. This
revolving door of fraternities
getting
expelled
only
to
reemerge in subsequent years
is indicative of the deep
structural problems that at
least the fraternity’s national
organization has not found
to be addressed by the IFC’s
proposed action plans.
Greek life has been an
integral part of Michigan
student life dating back to
its introduction to campus in
1845. Currently, 17 percent of
the student body is involved
in Greek life, but many more
are
indirectly
involved,
either through friendships
with students in Greek life
or
participation
in
Greek
events.
Greek
life
social
events play a formative role
in
undergraduate
social
lives. For example, fraternity
parties
are
often
new
students’ first exposure to
college social life. Greek life
isn’t exclusive to only those
who are in fraternities or
sororities, but the inherent
social overlaps make it all
the more important that the
student body understands and
is made aware of allegations
and efforts to combat issues
within the system.
The
incidents
that
prompted the IFC to establish
this suspension in the first
place reflect poorly on the
entire University community.
As one of the most reputable
public universities in the
nation, our students’ behavior
must exemplify the values
this institution prides itself
on and the campus climate
we want to create for each
other. The IFC suspension
provided
the
opportunity
for the Greek community to
prove themselves worthy of
being considered among the
leaders and best.
Sadly,
the
ineffective
implementation
of
this
suspension
and
the
IFC’s
continued
lack
of
accountability
indicates
insincerity.
We
hope
the
IFC takes a hard look at the
culture
embedded
in
its
storied institution. The first
step to what will hopefully
be a transformative process
for both Greek life and the
University
begins
with
transparency
through
the
publication of the IFC action
plans, as well as any records
of alleged misconduct.
Illustration by Natalie Brown.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.
Ian Leach can be reached at
ileach@umich.edu.
SARAH NEFF | CONTACT SARAH AT SANE@UMICH.EDU