Why Twitter’s Media Fight Is an Important Fight

After receiving a “government funded media” label, NPR and PBS quit Twitter. Other outlets soon followed, though the labels have since been removed:

The labels have already disappeared from the profiles of NPR, PBS, CBC, and BBC, all of which publicly criticized the move. NPR became the first major media organization to leave the platform after getting slapped with the “state-affiliated” label and was later followed by PBS and CBC.

Maybe the labels were retaliatory (probably); maybe they weren’t well-thought out (likely). Regardless, they underscore a much-needed awakening from America’s readership and viewership, an awakening that demands our greater questioning of the media.

Censorship — Bad! Questioning — Good!

I don’t agree with all-things Elon Musk, but I do align, to some degree, with the grindstone he’s putting to the media:

Musk has been known to take more targeted actions against specific newsrooms or journalists that he dislikes. … Musk hasn’t been shy about his feelings towards the press, arguing in favor of “citizen journalism” as a counter to mainstream publications.

I say “to some degree” because many of Musk’s moves smack of censorship. “Targeted actions” — censorship — are never the answer. But to question the media and journalists[1] … this is critical to truth and clarity. Say what you will about Musk, but scrutiny is long overdue, especially in the modern world of digital media.

A Tale of Two Titles

Before the internet, media had limited competition; at that time, the gatekeepers (a few major and local news outlets) were small … a bad thing for diversity of voice but arguably a good thing for minimizing sensationalism (a/k/a “yellow journalism”). But digital media has reversed things … now, there are more voices (good), but there’s also been a boon in sensationalism (bad), spurred by the competition for eyeballs. Today, winning that competition has vanquished the straight truth and, in its place, elevated the juicy details.

For example, here’s the same story from two different outlets. Which is truthier? Which is juicer?

The two titles have different framing … framing being an intentional, calculated, and personal decision to craft each title in a way that elicits a reader response. In a world of unemotional and unbiased facts, the title for this story would be framed in a more vanilla and straight-forward way:

· CEO discusses productivity of remote workers; says only “rarest” full-time caregivers can be full-time employees

The Yahoo title comes close to this, but the CNN title is framed in a much more sensationalized and emotionally-charged way. It strips the story down to the most salacious quote, framing the “full” story as “unforgiving executive vs. struggling parent.” To be fair to the article, this is what the CEO said:

Many of you have tried to tend your own children, and, doing so, also manage your demanding work schedules and responsibilities. And while I know you’re doing your best — some would say they’ve even mastered this art — but one could also argue that generally, this path is neither fair to your employer, nor fair to those children. Now, I don’t necessarily believe that, but I do believe that only the rarest of full-time caregivers can also be productive and full-time employees at the same time.

Notice that the CNN title focuses not on the story as a whole but on just four spoken words … “fair,” “employer,” “children,” and “caregivers.” This focus hides the context of the entire discussion, limiting the title’s transparency. It also reduces the CEO’s discussion to the most salacious words in his entire speech, painting (or at least suggesting) him as the villain.

The title also uses the term “primary caregivers” instead of the term actually used “full-time caregivers” (as correctly used in the Yahoo title). This “misuse” can only be one of two things: a) sloppy journalism, or b) an intentional edit. If you assume the latter (which is much more likely), then it’s a purposeful edit and, in this case, a sensationalized edit. Choosing — intentionally — the more widely used “primary caregiver” elicits a historic, long-running, and often reinforced assumption … that the mother is the “primary caregiver.”[2] Consequently, the CNN title visualizes and sexualizes the story; at first blush, it’s a story (incorrectly) with a singular theme: mothers working from home, their productivity[3] called into question by a male CEO (“male” being reinforced by the header picture).

Handpicking the Juicy Data

Sensationalism can also do damage to the main story, clouding the truth and dislodging neutrality. In the media, sensationalized data acts as an emotional tent pole, adding shock value and pushing readers in an ironclad direction. But here’s the thing … data can regularly be offset with counter-data; for every expert proof, there’s often an expert (unreported) who can prove the opposite. And when there isn’t data, the proof comes in the form of first-person accounts, creating the impression that a few personal experiences represent the experiences of the whole.

Making matters worse, readers are subdued by brand power … thus, if a respectable outlet reports data, then it must be foolproof, right? No need for more research. No need to read a cited study for yourself. For example, many (if not all) readers were shocked by this data, recently reported in a CNN op-ed:

A 2022 survey by Common Sense Media found that the average 8- to 12-year-old is on social media for 5 hours and 33 minutes per day, while the average 13- to 18 year-old [sic] spends 8 hours and 39 minutes every day. [emphasis added]. That’s more time than a full time-job.

But is this even possible? If we’re being honest and objective, it takes just one reading to see that the paragraph sounds unequivocally impossible. Ask yourself, “Is it possible for the average 13- to 18-year to actually spend nearly 9 hours per day — “every day” — on social media?” Simple math says “no,” taking into account sleep, school, activities, and part-time jobs. There’s just not enough hours in the day.

Now pry yourself away from CNN (few will do it) and actually read the cited survey from Common Sense Media. If you do, here’s what you’ll discover: the reality of the survey appears to be much different than the “facts” published by CNN:

· It’s not a current survey. The article calls it a “2022 survey,” but it’s actually a 2022 publication — focused on 2019–2021 — surveying “whether screen media use has changed since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.”

· It’s not a survey about “social media” but a survey about “total screen time,” which includes the cumulative use of television, gaming, social media, and “other.”

· It’s not a survey that supports the assertion “That’s more time than a full time-job.” The study cautions that the “findings on total amount of screen media used do not mean that young people devote five and half or eight and a half hours each day exclusively to screen media.”[4]

Truth or Consumption?

Putting aside the “how,” Musk is essentially questioning the media … i.e., a profit-driven industry that answers to shareholders, an industry rife with human biases and agendas (both right and left). The media is far from infallible, far from neutral. It champions sensationalism (to spur profits) over the much less profitable “facts.” It thinks strategically first, an action that’s inherently opposite to conveying the straightforward truth.

Yes, Musk’s “government funded media” label smacks of partisanship, and I don’t think political-ish branding is the correct way to balance the scales. But there is balance in labelling the media correctly, in removing the guise of candor that covers NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. I’m not speaking from the right or the left in this regard; I’m speaking from reality. And the reality is this: our media conglomerates have conglomerate responsibilities, and those responsibilities — as “profit driven media” — is to transform truth into consumption.

[1] At this point, somebody’s labelling me a “right wing” nut job, as if questioning the media is a political identity rather than an exercise of free will. This lazy assumption is wrong — the same lazy assumption that elevates the media to “gospel.” I don’t watch Fox News — my news search starts with CNN or NBC. I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, though some might argue that conspiratorial thinkers (before they become entrenched in fantasy) are, at the very least, questioning thinkers. I lean conservative, but I’m not recklessly Republican … as a registered Independent, I take to heart what Madison said about “factions” — Federalist Papers №10 (1787) — and their destructive nature.

[2] It’s an unfair stereotype but one rooted in antiquated history and in stories portrayed by TV, film, and media. It’s also reinforced statistically. According to Project 257, women spend almost twice as much time as men on unpaid domestic work such as childcare and elder care.

[3] “That only the rarest of full-time caregivers can also be productive and full-time employees at the same time” … this is a fact, and I know because I did it for nearly a decade. For eight years, I worked as a full-time, remote employee; at the same time, I was the primary caregiver for my two children (from when they were three months old to when they turned four years old). To make ends meet, my wife went back to teaching following the birth of each child, leaving me as the “primary caregiver” from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. During this time, I worked remotely (40 hours/week) as a research attorney. To do my job and do it well, I worked from 4 a.m. to 7 a.m. before the kids awoke … I worked during nap times … I worked late into the evening after my wife came home … balancing it all against pediatrician visits, diaper changes, swimming lessons, grocery shopping, park visits, playtime, temper tantrums, library time, etc. It’s hard — very hard — to manage these parental responsibilities while also filling 40 hours each week with quality work. And it’s even harder if the primary caregiver is a single parent, someone who lacks a teammate to free up their time.

[4] This is because:

· [Young people] often spend some proportion of time using multiple screens at once (for example, scrolling social media while watching television), meaning two hours of screen content could fit into a single hour of the day.

· They often watch or use screen media while they are doing other things, like riding in a car or bus, or eating breakfast.