erinrobinsonblog.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewKeywords: Media, lie, ethics, word choice, words, politics, false statements SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned, certify that

WORDS MATTER; MEDIA STANDARDS FOR FALSE STATEMENTS IN POLITICAL

REPORTING

___________________________

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

___________________________

Under the Supervision of Dr. Michael Hazel

Under the Mentorship of Kristina Morehouse

___________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

___________________________

By

Erin C. Robinson

May 2018

Running Head: WORDS AND POLITICAL REPORTING

Abstract

The study provides an overview of research that contributes to an understanding of the impact of

words written by journalists on news consumers. More specifically, the research included in this

paper contributes to an understanding of the impacts and/or consequences that are a direct result

of using specific word choice in political reporting when referring to false statements made by

powerful figures. The supporting research explores words as symbols (semiotics) and agenda-

setting in media coverage, in addition to the direct impact of journalists’ use of the word “lie” or

similar euphemisms in coverage of false statements made by political figures. The implications

of the findings are discussed in this thesis.

Keywords: Media, lie, ethics, word choice, words, politics, false statements

2


SIGNATURE PAGE

We the undersigned, certify that we read this thesis and approve it as adequate in scope and

quality for the degree Master of Arts.

____________________________________________________________

Thesis Director

____________________________________________________________

Faculty Mentor

____________________________________________________________

Faculty Reader

Gonzaga University

MA Program in Communication and Leadership Studies

3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 5Introduction 5Importance of the study 6Statement of the Problem 7Definition of Terms Used 8Organization of Remaining Chapters 9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10Philosophical Assumptions 10Theoretical Basis 11The Literature 13Significance/Rationale 15Specific Purpose 16Research Questions 16

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHADOLOGY 17Scope 17Method 18Data Analysis 19Validity & Reliability 19Ethical Considerations 20

CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY 21Introduction 21Results 21Discussion 33

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 36Limitations 36Further Study or Recommendations 37Conclusions 37

REFERENCES 39

APPENDICES 44Appendix A Consent Form 44Appendix B Interview Questionnaire 45Appendix C Additional Interview Questions 48

4


Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction

The American free press is responsible for providing the public with relevant information

about current happenings. The media, both mainstream and local, is expected to provide this

information with fact-based support and without a personal influence or opinion on the matter.

“Conventional news reporting – processing information into journalistic content – incorporates

various operations, the purpose of which is to exclude false and incidental information” (Himma-

Kadakas, 2017, p. 27). Journalists in 2018 are being held accountable to these standards more

than ever due to rising interest in politics, the current political climate, and commonality of false

statements made by politicians. Now more than ever before, journalists are fact-checking every

statement made by politicians and pushing that information out in a rapid, constant way.

Journalists have always held the powerful accountable. However, the presence and spread

of false political statements is rampant. Modern communication has shaped the way information

is spread from politicians to the average American citizen. Social media has made it possible for

political figures to speak directly to their constituents in the form of a Facebook post or Tweet.

As social media adapts, journalists are adapting. This instantaneous form of communication has

eliminated journalists from the process of spreading information from politicians to the public.

Politicians are able to publish any information they want to as fact on their own social media

pages. Journalists now have to interject themselves into the communication process by

constantly debunking these statements after they are made.

“The media acts as an effective check on government power and influence over its

citizens” (Lynch, 2011, para. 2). With this responsibility, the media is expected to debunk false

information and seek truth while also maintaining a neutral stance on the topic. When conveying

5


these truths to the public, the media must be careful with their word choice and understand the

influence these words have on the public’s understanding of a story. Specifically, the media must

choose words carefully when reporting on false statements made by political figures. Words have

a significant impact on those who read them; how a writer writes is equally as important to what

they write, especially in connection to reporting on controversial topics like politics.

False statements by prominent figures are thrown around generously in today’s political

climate. It is the responsibility of journalists to prove these statements wrong and provide the

truth. One topic of debate is the media’s choice to call these statements lies or similar

euphemisms. This paper seeks to develop an understanding of the direct relationship between

news decision-makers and their selection of word choice, specifically in connection to the

media’s reporting of these false statements.

Journalists have always maintained a responsibility to deliver factual, concrete

information. Now, journalists’ responsibility to seek truth and debunk inaccurate information is

more important than ever before.

Importance of Study

Journalism is a foundational aspect of democracy. Journalists uncover truth, hold the

powerful accountable, and provide the public with information they need to know. It is important

that journalists be held to standards that align with the roles they serve to the public. The modern

political climate has completely changed the perspective of journalists and their craft. Politicians

have brought journalists under fire for simply doing their job. However, there are journalists who

do not perform with the recognized standards of ethics. This study looks at the foundations that

several journalists maintain when conveying information to the public about politics, including

the politicians that directly attack them. This study is important because it analyzes the values

6


that journalists maintain in regard to political reporting, which is extremely prevalent in modern

society. This study looks at how journalists are adapting to covering politics as the world of

politics evolves.

Statement of the Problem

Modern politics is directly influencing the way journalists convey information to the

public. Political conservatives have declared a war on journalists and have developed a term

called “fake news.” In reality, “fake news” is information that is put out to deceive the average

news consumer. However, politicians have started to identify “fake news” as any information

published by a journalist that they do not agree with, regardless of fact. These false political

statements accusing journalists of unproven deceit is hindering the world of journalism. The

loose use of the term “fake news” has directly impacted journalists. Journalists are scrutinized

simply for doing their job. They are told the information they provide is not real, simply because

some news consumers do not agree with it or dislike the information put forward.

This phenomenon is directly impacting journalists’ news decision-making process.

Journalists are adapting their ethical standards, being extremely cautious of their word choice,

and are constantly evaluating their reporting in connection to any possible hint of agenda-setting

they could be accused of.

Every journalist is morally bound to ethical practices and standards in their reporting.

They develop these standards from experience, mentors, and news organizations that provide

guidance for responses to specific challenging situations. However, there are no universal,

ethical standards for journalists. As society evolves and different social problems arise,

journalists must adapt and develop the ethical standards they follow. This thesis looks at the

problem of false statements by politicians and analyzes the response by journalists.

7


Definitions of Terms Used

Journalism is defined as “a running account of the world” (Lemann, 2005, p. 54). It

provides an account, whether it be “descriptive, or prescriptive, or exhortatory, or explanatory”

(Lemann, 2005, p. 54). It is “necessarily connected to society as lived” (Lemann, 2005, p. 54).

Journalist is defined as someone who makes a “faithful representation of society”

(Lemann, 2005, p. 54). A journalist “Is a person who has some ‘editorial responsibility’ for the

preparation of or transmission of news stories or other information” (Shapiro, 2014, p. 558).

“Today, we argue, the journalist is understood as an independent storyteller and a journeyman,

whose body of work is her entrée into new jobs, and whose allegiance is not to any specific

employer, but rather to a set of ethical codes and journalistic norms” (Vahamaa & West, 2015, p.

20)

Politician is defined as someone whose goal is to conceal information “pursuant to the

implementation of governmental policy” (Sloan & Parcell, 2002, n.p.).

False Statement is defined as a statement that misleads the public (Messenger, 2015, para.

3). It is a “reckless disregard of truth” that is “not entitled to constitutional pro-tection”

(Messenger, 2015, para. 4).

Word Choice is defined as the “best word or phrase for a given context from among the

candidate near-synonyms” (Dras & Gardener, 2016, p. 99). It is “the choice of lexical item, with

the requirement of semantic sameness” (Dodds de Worf, 1996, p. 1).

Agenda-setting is defined as the mass media having “the ability to transfer the salience of

issues on their news agenda to the public agenda” (Griffin, 2012, p. 378). In other words, it is

“the influence of the news media in defining the most salient attributes by which the public

comes to understand an issue” (Lopez-Escobar, Llama, McCombs, & Lennon, 1998, p. 237).

8


News decision-maker is defined as “the men and women who make key decision in

television newsrooms” (Barber & Rauhala, 2005, p. 281).

Organization of Remaining Chapters

Chapter two explores the background of this thesis. It includes the philosophical

assumptions, theoretical basis, and literature review of materials that contribute to the

understanding of the topic of this study. Chapter two details the types of communication

involved in this study, the communication theories that pertain to an understanding of the topic,

as well as an in-depth look at the themes of the literature that contribute to this study, including

journalistic standards and ethics, word choice, and agenda-setting.

Chapter three develops the theoretical analysis of the study. It includes the basis of the

research conducted, as well as an analysis of the method by which the study was completed. This

chapter includes a descriptive explanation of the structure and delivery of the study, the

participants, and how the data were analyzed. Chapter three also provides an explanation of the

validity and reliability of this study in comparison to the overall topic on a greater scale. It also

offers perspective on the ethical considerations involved in this study.

Chapter four details the results of this study. This chapter also includes a description of

the research findings in relation to the research questions. Chapter four also provides a

discussion of how the data inform theory, as well as a speculation and connection of the

implications and meanings of the findings of this research.

Lastly, chapter five is a summation and conclusion of this thesis. Chapter five provides an

explanation of the limitations of the research findings, as well as recommendations for further

research.

9


Chapter 2: Literature Review

Philosophical Assumptions

Journalistic communication is an interaction between a journalist and a news consumer.

This relationship is rooted in interpersonal communication and the exchange of information

between two people. Journalists convey information to news consumers, but that information is

communicated to journalists by experts and those involved in the stories being told. Social

constructionist George Herbert Mead believed in symbolic interaction: the idea that thought,

self-concept, and the wider community is created through communication (Griffin, 2012, p. 54).

Symbolic interaction refers to language used in anticipation of the way others may respond.

Journalists’ language is written words. It is through journalistic writing and communication that

messages are conveyed. Journalists acknowledge that news consumers respond to stories based

on the words they use. They anticipate and consider these responses as they convey information

to the general public.

Response also plays into journalists’ ethical considerations. Ethics are “based on well-

founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms

of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness or specific virtues” (Andre, Meyer, Shanks &

Velasquez, 2010, para. 9). Consequence of action is always at the forefront of journalists’ minds.

Journalists constantly consider the repercussions and possible damage that can be done as a

result of their reporting. Journalistic resources like the Society of Professional Journalists and

Poynter Institute provide codes of ethics. “The codes formalize professional standards and

provide guidance when questions arise in practice,” (Neuman, 2014, p. 155). Journalists

understand the weight of their work on society. While it can cause change, it can also be

damaging.

10


Theoretical Basis

A theory is a “set of systematic, informed hunches about the way things work” (Griffin,

2012, p. 4). Theories involve speculation and conjecture, but go beyond accepted wisdom

(Griffin, 2012, p. 4). “Communication theory is the systematic and thoughtful response of

communication scholars to questions posed as humans interact with each other – the best

thinking within a practical discipline” (Griffin, 2012, p. 37). Griffin (2012) explains Robert

Craig’s understanding of communication as a “coherent field when we understand

communication as a practical discipline” (p. 37). There are two communication theories that

relate to this study: semiotics (or symbolism) and agenda-setting.

“Semiology (or semiotics) is concerned with anything that can stand for something else”

(Griffin, 2012, p. 332). According to Yildiz (2002), language is deemed as a system of signs that

convey ideas. These signs, or symbols, communicate a connotative or ideological meaning that is

deeper than the standard definition of a word. In this case, the words journalists use are symbols

that signify underlying messages that are being communicated in relation to the topic of the

story. “In many cases, the keywords of a sentence are manipulated to elicit an editorial comment

without the reader being explicitly aware that an opinion is being stated” (“News Bias

Explored,” n.d., para. 4). Words are an important, if not the most important, component of

journalistic communication and storytelling. “The switch from one [word] to the other can bring

dramatic changes in meaning, tone, and reader response” (Clark, 2008, para. 1). Words help

explain ideas and provide context. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis “provokes intellectual

discussion about the strong impact language has on our perception of the world around us”

(Hussein, 2012, p. 1). This hypothesis proclaims the influence of language on thought and

perception (Hussein, 2012, p. 1). In relation to this hypothesis, it can be understood that words

11


are symbolic and their symbolism conveys a message. That message is one of influence on those

absorbing journalism: news consumers. Though words each have definitions that are widely

accepted, they can serve to be symbols. de Saussure said language is a system and therefore a

word is a sign (Jayraj, 2017, p. 86). “The connection between language as a sign and its meaning

is fixed arbitrarily because the language is based on random choice or personal whims and

fancies, rather than any reason or system” (Jayraj, 2017, p. 86).

Word choice is a direct decision made by writers to signify the messages they are

conveying. According to Sari and Yusuf (2012), the language the media uses has a strong power

that influences the public’s judgments on a range of issues, including politics and social

interpretations (p. 18). Sari and Yusuf (2012) analyzed the impact of printed word on public

opinions and found they are read as consequential syntexts; meaning they are symbolic and

affect news consumers’ perceptions of stories (p. 18).

In addition to semiotics, the second theory most related to this topic of study is agenda-

setting. Agenda-setting is concerned with the media’s coverage of topical events and the impact

it has on the public. “Agenda-setting [is] the idea that there is a relationship between the

emphasis media place on issues – via placement or volume of coverage – and the public’s

subsequent assessment of the same issue’s importance” (Searles & Smith, 2016, p. 2075). There

are two forms of agenda-setting that can be recognized in journalistic reporting: classic agenda-

setting and intermedia agenda-setting. Classic agenda-setting is the transfer of salience from one

group to another (“User-Directed Agenda-setting, 2012, p. 4). Meantime, intermedia agenda-

setting has developed as technology progressed. “This area deals with how different outlets may

set the agenda for each other,’ (“User-Directed Agenda-setting, 2012, p. 4). Researchers have

found intermedia agenda-setting in politics often. “Most of these studies find evidence that

12


politicians are somewhat successful at directing the agenda during the campaign season,” (“User-

Directed Agenda-setting, 2012, p. 4).

Though politicians may set an agenda themselves, there is a great responsibility for the

media to keep agenda-setting in perspective in their reporting. The public seeks assistance from

the media in understanding and determining political reality. Journalism professors Maxwell

McCombs and Donald Shaw said the public “looks to news professionals for cues on where to

focus our attention. ‘We judge as important what the media judge as important,’” (Griffin, 2012,

p. 378). This is becoming especially true with American political news coverage and the influx

of news through various platforms. News writers are constantly inundating consumers with news

stories, which displays agenda-setting in coverage. Some stories are given more publicity than

others, which can have an impact on how a news consumer interprets the story.

The Literature

Journalistic Standards and Ethics

The media is responsible for reporting the truth and debunking statements that are

inaccurate. It is commonly accepted that journalists should uncover false statements, but there is

no set of standards required for journalists to follow. There are recommendations offered by the

Society of Professional Journalists and Poynter Institute that most journalists maintain and hold

to be true. The Society of Professional Journalists maintains four standards in relation to

journalistic communication: Seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be

accountable and transparent (“SPJ Code of Ethics,” 2014, p. 1). The Poynter Institute

recommends five core values of journalism ethics: accuracy, independence, collaboration,

fairness, and transparency (“The Poynter Institute Code of Ethics,” n.d, para. 3). All journalists

13


develop and follow some code of ethics. However, this can vary from newsroom to newsroom

and even journalist to journalist.

Word Choice

The media is quick to debunk inaccurate statements by use of concrete evidence, fact-

checkers, and the process of verifying information. However, members of the media have

different standards for their labeling of false information, especially false political statements.

Journalists tend to use euphemisms for the word lie, instead of directly calling a statement a lie.

This is because lying requires intent of deceit. Wall Street Journal editor in chief Gerald Baker

said, “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying

something that’s false,” (Baker, 2017, para. 4). Journalists are required to maintain neutrality

when reporting, so implying deceit is often something news decision-makers avoid. However,

events within the past two years have led to mainstream media companies to label inaccurate

statements as lies. The executive editor of the New York Times, Dean Baquet, has drawn

criticism for using the term “lie” when referencing statements made by the President. “Mr.

Baquet said he fully understood the gravity of using the word ‘lie,’ whether in reference to an

average citizen or to the president of the United States,” (Barry, 2017, para. 21). This thesis will

seek to answer in what context the media should call a false statement a lie.

There are many ways to label an incorrect statement, but different words have different

meanings. These statements can be called falsehoods, untruths, inaccuracies or lies. A falsehood

is a statement that is not true. An untruth is euphemistic way of saying something is false. An

inaccurate statement is a statement that is simply incorrect. However, by definition, intent is

what differentiates a lie from a falsehood, untruth, or inaccurate statement. “A lie is a statement

made by one who does not believe it with the intention that someone else shall be led to believe

14


it,” (Isenberg, 1973, p. 248). Some news decision-makers avoid using the term “lie” and instead

use a euphemism for the word in their reporting since they do not want to address or imply

intent. However, some news decision-makers have chosen to use the word “lie.” Different

premises offer different opportunities for news decision-makers to consider when selecting the

words they use in their reporting.

Significance

The study of words as symbols (semiotics) and agenda-setting in political reporting is

significant because of its impact on American society and perception of government. In America,

the press provides a public service that is necessary for citizens to understand current events. The

words that journalists use in their reporting directly influence the extent of what the public

understands about the topic at hand. When reporting on false statements in politics, journalists

must use words that explicitly outline the underlying message and effectively convey the

seriousness of the topic, but also maintain neutrality. However, there is an expectation that the

media debunk these statements. This process can lead to writers using more impactful word

choice. Additionally, the extent of coverage on a false statement also impacts the public’s

perception of the story. A great amount of coverage could imply the story is more important than

others. Conversely, minimal coverage could imply the story is not as important. These are all

factors journalists must consider when reporting on a story.

The American political system is riddled with false statements. With the current political

climate and increased interest in the media’s coverage of it, this research is important in helping

gain a perspective of the power and influence the media has on the general public when covering

these false statements. The word “lie” and related euphemisms have been seen in headlines by

the New York Times, Washington Post, The Daily Beast, as well as other commonly read

15


publications. The use of these words is undoubtedly impacting the perception of news stories on

news consumers, but the extent of that impact is unknown. That impact is ever-changing and the

overall impact may never be known. However, the research conducted in this study seeks to

provide an understanding of the approach and criteria used by news decision makers in coverage

of false political statements, specifically in connection to the word “lie” and other words used to

label false statements.

Specific Purpose

The purpose of this study is to analyze how news decision-makers weigh the power of

words and, ultimately, take into consideration that power when reporting. This study will

specifically focus on the word “lie,” as well as other euphemisms for the word lie. The word

“lie” will be studied because it implies intent. When implying intent and using strong word

choice like “lie”, the media is going beyond fact-checking and taking a stance on the false

political statement made.

Research Question(s)

First, this study seeks to determine: How do news decision-makers decide when to call a

political claim a lie or use a euphemism for the word lie? Second, this study seeks to answer:

When do news decision-makers decide to use those words? Additionally, this research seeks to

analyze: What are the criteria news decision-makers consider when calling these false

statements, a lie?

16


Chapter 3: Scope and Methodology

Scope

This theoretical analysis is rooted in semiotics and agenda-setting as they relate to

reporting on false political statements. The basis of this research analyzed news decision-makers’

perspective on the symbolism of words, as well as their perspective of the possible influence of

words in their reports on false political claims. This research focused on news decision-makers

and their process in deciding what words to use in their reports rather than the impact of those

words on news consumers. This research focused on media creators’ processes rather than the

impact on media consumers because, while there is undoubtedly some level of influence of this

reporting, it is difficult to gauge and quantify someone’s perception. However, it is easier to

gauge the factors that contribute to decision-making processes by those who create content.

Research analyzed in the literature review concludes that media has an influence on consumers

based on the words they use and stories they choose to cover. However, there is little to no

research related to words, their symbolism, and agenda-setting specifically connected to

reporting on false political claims. In order to narrow the scope of this topic, this research

gathered data from several news decision-makers within the same local television news station.

Every journalist makes ethical and moral decisions related to the stories they report. In a

television news station, there is a hierarchy in terms of who makes what decisions and when. A

news director typically has the executive and final say in the way a report is given. At local

television news stations, the news management team is made up of a news director, assistant

news director, morning executive producer, and digital director. Each manager makes decisions

related to their reporting. The news director and assistant news director make decisions related to

every broadcast. The morning executive producer makes decision decisions related to the

17


morning broadcasts. The news director and assistant news director often provide news judgement

for morning broadcasts, but the morning executive producer will make the executive call when

no other managers are present. Lastly, the digital director makes news decisions for online

platforms. Additionally, news anchors, who directly deliver reports to audiences, weigh in on the

decision-making process to offer feedback.

Participants in this study included one news director, one assistant news director, one

digital manager, five news anchors, and one political reporter. These participants were selected

because they are the people within the same newsroom and are people who most often deliberate

delivery of stories that require ethical decision making.

Method

The data collected in this study were gathered through an online survey using Survey

Monkey. Survey participants were notified through email and provided an online link to the

survey. The survey included a list of multiple choice and fill-in questions related to news

decision making, political media coverage, word choice, and agenda-setting. The survey also

included a space where participants could agree to participate in an additional 10-15 minute

follow up interview. Those who agreed for an additional interview spoke directly with the

researcher about their specific survey answers and trends that result from the data collected from

all survey answers.

This study is structured around two research methods: 1.) Exploratory research and 2.)

Qualitative research. “We use exploratory research when the subject is very new, we know little

or nothing about it, and no one has yet explored it,” (Neuman, 2014, p. 389). The topic of news

decision-makers’ process in relationship to false political claims is a topic that has little to no

prior research. This research provided thoughtful, creative questions that sparked answers related

18


to decision-making resources, ethical standards, and content put forward as a result of those

criteria.

This study was also a qualitative study. “In qualitative studies, we measure with

alternatives to numbers, and measurement is less a separate research step” (Neuman, 2014, p.

199). This study was approached through qualitative research rather than quantitative because

the data are best reflected through concepts and how participants perceive the topic.

“Measurement intimately connects how we perceive and think about the social world with what

we find in it,” (Neuman, 2014, p. 199). This study allowed participants to reflect on the questions

and provide thoughtful feedback, rather than static numbers.

Data Analysis

The data collected from this survey were analyzed by looking for and compiling thematic

trends. These trends were representative of both the individual completing the survey, but also

the decision-making process that is generally accepted by employees of the participating news

station. The processor looked at how heavily news decision-makers weigh and value words, as

well as the symbolism of words in their reporting, as well as they type of words (e.g. lie,

falsehood) they use.

Validity and Reliability

This data only surveyed the news decision-making process by journalists at one television

station in one media market. Though the data are both valid and reliable for the employees of the

news station that participated, the data do not represent the entire media market’s approach to

reporting on false political claims. Additionally, reliability could be determined by similar

responses from participants in their survey answers. Lastly, the data collected from this study

were representative of the current state of reporting. “Stability reliability is reliability across

19


time: It addresses the question: Does the measure deliver the same answer when applied in

different time periods?” (Neuman, 2014, p. 208). As journalism and politics continue to develop,

the reliability of the findings may be outdated.

Ethical Considerations

The relationship between the study’s processor and participants should be acknowledged.

The processor was the morning executive producer at the local news station that employed study

participants at the time research was conducted. The processor was also considered a news

decision-maker at the station at the time of the study. As morning executive producer, the

processor had input and reasonable influence over the station’s decision-making process. The

processer often had final say in the way the station reports when the news director and assistant

news director are not present.

Additionally, this study was completely voluntarily. Participants were invited to complete

the survey and did so willingly. Before completing the survey, participants were provided and

signed a consent form (Appendix A) stating their participation was completely voluntary.

20


Chapter 4: The Study

Introduction

This chapter describes the results and analysis of data of the research findings in this

study. The research findings are directly related to the questions that guided the study; including

a survey and personal interviews. Multiple news decision-makers within the same newsroom

offered their perspective and detailed their approach to reporting on false statements by political

figures by answering the provided survey questions. As shown in Appendix B, the data were

collected through an online survey comprised of 14 questions. The survey included questions

about the frequency of political reporting done by participants, the type or types of political

stories they report, their decision-making process, as well as the ethical factors they consider in

their decision-making process. Data were analyzed to identify and describe three factors:

Frequency of political reporting, type of political reporting, and the process news decision-

makers use in their political reporting. Those willing to participant in an additional personal

interview were asked nine in-depth questions (Appendix C) related to their personal reporting

process and the exact decision-making steps they take within their report preparation and

process.

Results

Intentional and classificatory analysis was used to identify and highlight both trends and

frequencies within the data collected in this survey. This survey was sent to nine people. Six

people agreed to participate and completed the survey. Not every participant answered every

question. Therefore, the trends and frequencies depicted in this analysis correspond to the

number of news decision-makers that answered each individual question. Additionally, two

21


people volunteered to participate in an additional personal interview. The results of those

interviews only represent the individual participant.

Frequency of Political Reporting

Participants were asked to answer multiple questions regarding the frequency of their

political reporting. These included how frequently they make decisions regarding reporting at

their station, as well as how often they report on political stories. For example, participants were

asked the following questions: How often do you make decisions regarding the way a story is

reported by your station? How often do you report political stories? How often do you make

decisions regarding the way a political story is reported? Each respondent said they contribute to

the station’s general decision-making process daily. Some respondents said they only contribute

once daily, while more than half of respondents stated they make decisions related to reporting

two to three times a day.

Respondents also had varying answers in regard to their political reporting. The majority

of respondents said they report political stories daily, if not multiple times a day. Only one

respondent said they only report political stories on a weekly basis, with two to three times a

week. Lastly, respondents signified that their decision-making in regard to political stories is

frequent. Most participants report making decisions either daily or weekly.

22


Table 4.1

23


Table 4.2

Table 4.3

24


Type of Political Reporting

Participants were asked questions related specifically to their political reports and the

types of political reports they deliver. For example, participants were asked the following the

questions: What type of political stories do you cover? Have you ever reported on a “false

statement” made by a politician? All participants indicated they cover general politics. As shown

in Table 4.4, nearly every respondent said they cover all types of political stories included in the

survey. The types of political stories included in the survey ranged from local to national politics,

as well as individual politicians, elections, political statements, and even scandals. Every

participant that answered said they have experience reporting on false statements by political

figures.

Table 4.4

25


Table 4.5

Process

The main purpose of this survey was to ask participants about their decision-making

process as it relates to political stories and the factors they consider in these reports. More

specifically, this survey was designed to gather input on how news decision-makers cover false

statements made by politicians. For example, participants were asked the following questions:

What factor(s) contribute to your decision-making process and choice to cover a political story?

When reporting specifically on false statements by politicians, what factors do you consider in

your delivery of the report? As shown in Table 4.6, respondents noted a variety of factors that

contribute to their decision-making process when covering political stories. Respondents

signified validity, truth, timing, relevance, transparency, and the political leanings of their

viewers as factors they consider when covering political stories. Respondents also added

“importance” and “value” to the list of factors. When answering questions specifically pertaining

to coverage of false political statements, every participant said they have reported on such. They

also noted multiple factors contribute to the delivery of their report. In addition to the answers

26


provided, respondents added “transparency,” “reader bias,” and “implications.” One participant

wrote, “Reader bias – heavily right leaning. When fact-checking, we are conscious of this in our

coverage.” Another participant wrote, “Implications. Meaning – sometimes politicians will say

things that are technically true, but are weaponized in a way to imply untrue things.”

Table 4.6

27


Table 4.7

Word Choice and Agenda-Setting

To further analyze how they report false political statements, participants were asked

about the factors that contribute to their decision-making process, including word choice and

agenda-setting. For example, participants were asked the following questions: What factors do

you consider in the delivery of a report about false statements made by politicians? How do you

label false political statements? As shown in Table 4.8, word choice was the most important

factor news decision-makers considered in their reporting of false political statements. Sixty

percent of participants also included agenda-setting as a factor. When asked about the labeling of

false political statements and the word choice they use, participants included a variety of

answers. Every participant noted they use the term “false,” but several participants also included

“misrepresentation” and “inaccurate” as words they commonly use to label false statements. Less

28


than half of participants used the word “lie” and one respondent added “misleading” and

“unfair.”

Table 4.8

29


Table 4.9

Personal Interviews

Two survey respondents agreed to voluntarily participate in a personal interview. The

questions asked in the personal interviews delved deeper into the preparation and requirements

the news decision-makers incorporate into their political reporting. For example, participants

were asked the following questions: How would you describe your reporting process? How do

you prepare ahead of a political report? If word choice a factor in your political reporting? Is

agenda-setting a factor in your political reporting? One respondent was a political reporter, while

the other was a digital director.

Political Reporter

The political reporter stated he avoided political reporting for a long time, despite having

degrees in both political science and journalism. He said he often felt that his reports would not

30


be of interest to audiences because today’s audience is not as impacted by research, evidence, or

accurate sources as it has been in the past. He added that viewers now care more about sticking

with their political party than appreciating and understanding concrete evidence. When asked

about his political reporting process, the reporter said he first asks himself a question: “If I

wasn’t a reporter, would I be interested in this story?” He said he asks himself if he would care

for the story if he was not primed for it.

When asked about how he prepares, the reporter said he does much more research for

political stories than for other reports. “With most of my interviews, I intentionally don’t do

research beforehand because I find if I do research, I skip over obvious questions I know, that the

audience might not. So, it’s better going into it with no information. But, with political

interviews that’s not the case because you have to be able to hold people accountable. They’re

going to come equipped with information,” he said.

The reporter added that he is “hyper-aware” of political bias at the moment due to the

nature of modern politics. He was asked about any specific guidelines he requires in his report;

for example, does he ask politicians on either side of the spectrum the exact same questions?

Does he allot them the same amount of time to answer? The reporter said no because of basic

human nature. He said some politicians answer questions directly, while others are long-winded.

He even said some politicians simply talk slower than others and it would not be fair to cut them

off based on a factor that really is out of their control.

The reporter also talked about word choice and agenda-setting in his reports. He said,

though he keeps word choice in mind, he tries to avoid writing and re-writing scripts. “The more

you get separated from that initial script you wrote, the less you sound human,” he said. The

reporter said his primary goal in relation to word choice is to write the way people talk. He added

31


that using more convoluted words make it harder for the average viewer to understand, and this

can draw more criticism. Additionally, he added that agenda-setting is something he factors into

his political reporting. “I think the word ‘agenda’ is used today to take on your political ideology

or party affiliation. But if you expand beyond that, agenda can be ‘What do I find interesting?’”

he said. The reporter said that he often does more research into topics he personally finds

interesting and uses this research to present stories that do have value to the average viewer.

Digital Director

In a personal interview, the digital director added similar sentiments that the reporter

expressed in terms of bias and fair reporting. She said her work on the news station’s website and

social media pages tends to lead her to write more stories from press releases than actual in-

person interviews with politicians. She said simply publishing the same number of stories onto

the website helps with giving fair coverage to both sides of the political spectrum.

The digital director stressed how important word choice is in her political news coverage.

“Word choice is a big factor. You have to be really careful because people online are just

kind of looking for that ‘liberal media bias,’ so you have to be really careful to be

unbiased in everything you do or people are just going to be after you,” she said.

This led her to talk about how careful she is with labeling false statements by political figures.

She said she avoids using the word “lie.”

“It’s so hard. I don’t do it because I will say they are incorrect, or actually [point out what

they say] isn’t the case, but it’s hard to call something false when it’s something someone

believes. We’re in this world where there isn’t really a universally accepted truth

anymore. And so, if Donald Trump or whoever says something, he thinks that to be true.

32


If we say it’s false, somehow, we’re the ‘liberal news media.’ And it sucks because it’s

not the kind of journalism I want to be in, but it’s the kind of world we’re living in.”

The digital director said that she does her best to remain as fair as possible. She said she

does not consult others much in her reporting process because she often has final say in the way

a report is given. However, she added she does run stories by others if she feels there needs to be

more information added.

Discussion

The results from the survey show that respondents consider multiple factors when

reporting on politics. Beyond the general frequency and relevance of their reporting, it can be

determined that news decision-makers organize their reporting of false political statements with

word choice and corresponding agenda-setting in mind.

Words are symbolic in journalism. They can matter-of-factly describe a story or subtly

send a message of bias. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity, the

structure of language shapes what people think and do (Griffin, 2012, p. 43). The words chosen

by journalists to describe current events shape the way viewers and readers interpret the context

of story. As reflected in the survey results, 100% of participants said they consider the words

they use when delivering a report. As expected, participants indicated they understand the weight

of the words they use and the implications that can come as a result of using the wrong words.

This is shown in the responses to the survey question about labeling false political statements

(Table 4.9). Forty percent of respondents said they would label a false political statement a “lie.”

One respondent noted that they would not completely rule out using the word “lie,” but said it

implies intent. Several respondents noted that it is difficult to prove intent, so they often choose

33


to label false statements with other descriptors so as to be careful of the possible implications of

their words.

The survey results also show agenda-setting is a subsequent factor that respondents

consider in their political reporting. This can be interpreted in two ways: Agenda-setting can be

directed toward the politician that made the statement or the reporter telling the story. Either

way, respondents noted it is important to keep agenda-setting in mind when reporting on politics.

This is because journalists must present stories fairly and without bias. When they do not give

each perspective the same amount of coverage or allow their own politics to factor into their

decision-making, viewers are not educated about the issues at hand properly. As shown in Table

4.6, not one respondent said their political views affect their coverage. However, one respondent

did note that the general leaning of their audience is something they consider in the political

reporting and fact-checking.

All in all, the results in this survey met expectations. Journalists understand their role is

educate the public and do so with as little to no bias as possible. This being said, it was expected

that respondents would answer with the ethical foundations they hold true, as well as common

journalistic expectations, at the forefront of their mind. However, it is nearly impossible to report

without any bias. This is because every journalist does have some form of an opinion about a

story. They can always do their best to write as fair-mindedly as possible, but their opinion,

shared or not, never goes away. Some could argue that any coverage of a topic demonstrates a

personal interest in it. Regardless, the answers provided in this survey demonstrate the

foundations that these respondents hold to be true and incorporate in their reporting. The results

shed a light into what factors these news decision-makers keep in mind when structuring their

reports.

34


All participants noted that word choice and language are important considerations to

them. This study specifically surveyed broadcast journalists. Broadcast journalism differs from

print journalism because delivery of words is also a factor in a report. In addition to diction and

syntax, broadcast journalists have to consider how a word is said and which words are

emphasized. The tone and delivery of a report can easily sway its connotation. The above results

do not demonstrate or highlight connotation in the delivery of a report.

The above results also offer a glimpse into media agenda-setting. Though not directly

reflected in the above results, agenda-setting can be observed through how, when, and why a

political story is reported. First, agenda-setting can be observed with how journalists cover a

story; this includes how often the story is run, as well as how much time is dedicated to the story

in a broadcast. Agenda-setting can also be observed when a story is presented to viewers. For

instance, maybe a story is run during a broadcast that journalists know does not have a strong

viewership. Or, maybe a story is published online in the middle of the night when people are

sleeping so it does not get as much internet traction. Additionally, there is always a “why”

behind any report. Maybe a story is only being covered because the president tweeted about it.

Or, maybe a story is being covered because the journalist has interest in it. There are many

caveats that journalists must consider when telling their story to their audience. If they do not

think about, the audience will.

35


Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions

Limitations

Although the research in this study was well prepared, it still has limitations. First is time.

This study was conducted over the course of a week. Participants were given just two days to

complete the survey. Those willing to participate in an additional interview were given an

additional three days to sit down with the processor of the study. Should more research on this

topic be conducted, more time should be allotted to poll participants in order to allow them to

offer a more in-depth perspective.

The second limitation of this study was the size of the participant pool. This research only

collected data from six participants. While the responses still varied, further research from a

larger participant pool would offer greater insight into the current state of journalism and how

journalists are approaching covering false political statements. A larger participant pool would

simply offer more perspective, but also a wider, more diverse range of perspectives.

The third limitation of this study was the professional background of participants. This

study only surveyed broadcast television journalists. This study did not survey print journalists.

Therefore, the data collected is only representative of one group of journalists. Additionally,

participants all worked within the same newsroom. This limited the study’s scope to a group of

journalists who most likely uphold similar ethical standards based on the editorial directions of

the newsroom and station’s upper management. Print journalism newsrooms are structured

differently than broadcast television newsrooms and have a slower story turnover rate. Surveying

print journalists would likely offer different perspectives on news decision-making. Additionally,

surveying broadcast journalists in an array of newsrooms in different media markets would offer

a variety of diverse perspectives.

36


Further Study or Recommendations

The initial aim of this research was to analyze the impact of word choice and agenda-

setting in news decision-makers’ reporting on false political claims. In recognizing the

limitations of this study, I believe the research and analysis of the collected data achieved this.

However, further study is recommended. The results from this study show how just one

newsroom approaches their decision-making process and the factors the respondents consider

when delivering a report. To expand the scope of this research, I would recommend simply

expanding the number of participants. A larger participant pool would allow for more data on the

topic. Additionally, I would recommend surveying journalists from other television newsrooms,

a variety of news markets (different-sized markets), as well as print journalists. By surveying

journalists in a wide range of newsrooms and market sizes, the data will encompass the varying

decision-making trends unique to each. Additionally, print journalists engage with their

audiences in different capacities than broadcast journalists. This would provide further insight

into political journalism and covering false political statements.

Conclusions

The field of journalism is adapting to new challenges and norms as the realm of politics

continues to change. In conclusion, this study presented an in-depth analysis of the news

decision-making process within a broadcast television newsroom, specifically in regard to

coverage of false political statements. This study provided perspective from journalists that face

the challenges of difficult, ethical decision-making on a regular basis. It provided insight into the

moral dilemmas and controversial judgements that newsrooms are faced with when determining

their approach to coverage. This study is a continuation of past research, but offers a glimpse into

37


the current state of political reporting and the challenging situations journalists navigate

continually.

38


References

Andre, Claire, Michael Meyer, Thomas Shanks, and Manuel Velasquez. "What Is

Ethics?" What Is Ethics? - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. 2010. Accessed April 20,

2018. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-

ethics/.

Archive, C. P. (2017, January 24). Calling a lie a lie - The Boston Globe. Retrieved January 25,

2018, from

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/01/24/calling-lie-lie/yclDCEnPvG4y7BvUN

JrmdO/story.html

Arul Jayraj, J. (2017, April). Formation of a Word: A Semiotic, Syntactic, and Semantic

Analysis as Viewed by Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Heidegger, Fish, and Latour. Retrieved

February 12, 2018.

Baker, G. (2017, January 04). Trump, 'Lies' and Honest Journalism. Retrieved May 5, 2018,

from https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lies-and-honest-journalism-1483557700

Barber, M., & Rauhala, A. (2005). The Canadian News Directors Study: Demographics and

Political Leanings of Television Decision - Makers. Canadian Journal of

Communication,30(2), 281-293. Retrieved April 22, 2018.

Barry, D. (2017, January 25). In a Swirl of 'Untruths' and 'Falsehoods,' Calling a Lie a Lie.

Retrieved January 25, 2018, from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/donald-trump-lie-media.html

Borchers, C. (2017, January 03). Media standards on lies and false statements are changing fast.

Retrieved February 12, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-

fix/wp/2017/01/03/media-standards-on-lies-and-false-statements-are-changing-fast/

39


Burkhardt, J. M. (2017). Combatting Fake News in the Digital Age. Library Technology

Reports,53. Retrieved February 12, 2018.

Chen, A. (2017). The Fake News Fallacy. The New Yorker. Retrieved February 12, 2018.

Clark, R. P. (2017, March 02). Why the Littlest Words Can Mean a Lot. Retrieved February 12,

2018, from https://www.poynter.org/news/why-littlest-words-can-mean-lot

Crate, L. (2017). Fake News vs. Real News. NJEA Review. Retrieved February 12, 2018.

Dodds de Wolf, G. (1996). Word Choice: Word Choice Lexical Variation in Two Canadian

Surveys. Journal of English Linguistics,24(2). Retrieved April 22, 2018.

Dou, J., Liu, M., Muneer, H., & Schlussel, A. (n.d.). What Words Do W Use to Lie?: Word

Choice in Deceptive Messages. Retrieved February 12, 2018.

Dras, M., & Gardener, M. (2015). Predicting word choice in affective text. Natural Language

Engineering,22(1), 99-134. Retrieved April 22, 2018.

Duzett, A. (2011, April 26). Media Bias in Strategic Word Choice. Retrieved February 12, 2018,

from http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/media-bias-in-strategic-word-choice/

Ejstrup, M., & Le Fevre Jakobsen, B. (2016). Semiotic Approach to Media Language. Journal of

Media, Communication & Film,3(1). Retrieved February 12, 2018.

Gonzales, R. (2017, January 25). NPR And The Word 'Liar': Intent Is Key. Retrieved February

12, 2018, from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511503605/npr-

and-the-l-word-intent-is-key

Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016, November 11). Social Media Update 2016.

Retrieved January 25, 2018, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-

update-2016/

Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look at Communication Theory (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-

40


Hill.

Himma-Hadakas, M. (2017). Alternative facts and fake news entering journalistic content

production cycle. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal,9(2).

Retrieved January 25, 2018.

Hussein, B. (2012). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Today. Theory and Practice in Language

Study,2(3), 642-646. doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f

Initiative, I. G. (n.d.). Bias, Bullshit and Lies: Audience Perspectives on Low Trust in the Media.

Retrieved February 12, 2018, from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-

research/bias-bullshit-and-lies-audience-perspectives-low-trust-media

Ingram, M. (2017, January 26). When Should Journalists Use the 'L' Word? Retrieved February

12, 2018, from http://fortune.com/2017/01/26/donald-trump-facts-lies/

Isenberg, A., 1973. ‘Deontology and the Ethics of Lying,’ in Aesthetics and Theory of

Criticism: Selected Essays of Arnold Isenberg, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1973. 245–264.

Jacobs, R.N. & Townsley, E.R. (2011). The space of opinion: Media intellectuals and the

public sphere. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

Lee, J. K. (2015). Knowledge as a Measure of News Reception in the Agenda-Setting

Process. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. Retrieved February 12, 2018.

Lemann, N. (2005). The Journalism in Literary Journalism. Literary Journalism Studies,50-58.

Retrieved April 22, 2018.

Lopez-Escobar, E., Llamas, J.P., McCombs, M.E., & Lennon. F.R. (1998). Two levels of agenda

setting among advertising and news in the 1995 Spanish elections. Political

Communication, 15.

41

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-


Lynch, M. (2011, November 11). Analyzing the Media's Role in the Political Process. Retrieved

February 12, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-lynch-edd/analyzing-

the-medias-role_b_1083914.html

Messenger, A. (2015). False Statements and Actual Malice: Courts Rethink What's Required to

Protect Free Speech. 31(3). Retrieved April 22, 2018.

Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Boston: Pearson.

News Bias Explored (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

http://umich.edu/~newsbias/wordchoice.html

Perlman, M. (n.d.). Word choice and reader knowledge. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/language_corner_020314.php

Sari, D. F., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2012). Different representations and semiotics analysis of web news

texts. International Journal of Language Studies.

Searles, K., & Smith, G. (2016). Who's the Boss? Setting the Agenda in a Fragmented Media

Environment. Internal Journal of Communication. Retrieved February 12, 2018.

Shapiro, I. (2014). Why Democracies Need a Functional Definition of Journalism Now More

Than Ever. 543-586. Retrieved April 22, 2018.

Sloan, W.D., & Parcel, L.M. (2002) American journalism: History, principles, practices.

Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co., USA.

Social Media Fact Sheet. (2018, February 05). Retrieved February 07, 2018, from

http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/

SPJ Code of Ethics - Society of Professional Journalists. (2014, September 6). Retrieved April

20, 2018, from https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

"The Poynter Institute Code of Ethics." Poynter. Accessed April 20, 2018.

42

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-lynch-edd/analyzing-


https://www.poynter.org/poynter-institute-code-ethics.

Understanding Media: Process and Principles. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

https://www.poynter.org/newsu/courses/understanding-media-process-and-principles

User-Directed Agenda-setting: Explaining and exploring the new agenda. (2012). Conference

Papers -- International Communication Association,1-29. Retrieved February 27, 2018.

Vahamaa, M., & West, M. D. (2015). “They Say One Thing and Mean Another:” How

Differences in In-Group Understandings of Key Goals Shape Political

Knowledge. Nordicom Review,19-34. Retrieved May 5, 2018.

43


Appendix A

Consent Form

You are invited to participate in an online survey on news decision-makers and word

choice as they are related to political reporting. This is a research thesis being conducted by Erin

Robinson, a master's degree candidate at Gonzaga University. This survey should take between

3-5 minutes to complete. Upon completion of the survey, there is also an opportunity for an

additional, voluntary personal interview.

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You may refuse to take part in the research.

You may decline to answer any particular question you do not wish to answer for any reason.

Your survey answers will be completed through SurveyMonkey.com. The data will be

collected and analyzed by Erin Robinson.

Electronic Consent: Please select your choice below. By selecting “Agree” you agree to

the following:

You have read the consent form and information provided above

You voluntarily agree to participate

o Agree

o Disagree

44


Appendix B

Interview Questionnaire

1. Are you a newsroom manager, anchor or reporter?YesNo

2. Do you consider yourself a news “decision-maker?”YesNo

3. How often do you make decisions regarding the way a story is reported by your station?Once a day2-3 times a dayMultiple times a day1-2 times a week2-3 times a weekA few times a month

4. How often do you report political stories?1-2 times a day2-3 times a day1-2 times a week2-3 times a week1-2 times a month2-3 times a month

5. How often do you make decisions regarding the way a political story is reported by your station?Once a day2-3 times a dayMultiple times a day1-2 times a week2-3 times a weekA few times a month

6. What type of political stories do you cover? (Select all that apply)Local electionsNational electionsLocal politiciansNational politiciansPolitical scandalsStatements made by politicians (national)

45


Statements made by politicians (local)

7. What factors contribute to your decision-making process and choice to cover a political story? (Select all that apply)Validity and truth for viewers or readersTimingRelevance to viewers/readersTransparency My own political viewsThe political views of viewers/readersOther

8. How much time do you spend deciding how to report a political story?A few minutes1-2 hoursSeveral hoursA dayA week

9. Do you consult other newsroom decision-makers when reporting on politics? If so, who? YesNo

10. Have you ever reported on a “false statement” made by a politician?YesNo

11. When reporting specifically on false statements by politicians, what factors do you consider in your delivery of the report? (Select all that apply) Word choiceAgenda-settingStatistics Proof/evidenceOther

12. How do you label false political statements? (Select all that apply)InaccurateFalseUntruthDistortionMisrepresentationFabricationLieOther

13. Have you ever called a false political statement a lie? Explain why or why not.

46


YesNo

14. Are you willing to participate in an additional 10-15 interview to discuss inaccurate political statements and news coverage of these statements?YesNo

47


Appendix C

Additional Interview Questions

1. Do you report political stories?

2. What kind of political stories do you report?

3. How would you describe your reporting process?

4. How do you prepare ahead of a political report?

5. Do you have specific guidelines you require in each of your political reports? What are

they?

6. Do you consult others during your reporting process? Who do you consult? Why or why

not?

7. Is word choice a factor in your political reporting? Why or why not?

8. What do you think about calling false statements lies? Do you have another word you

prefer? Why?

9. Is agenda-setting a factor in your political reporting? Why or why not?

48

erinrobinsonblog.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewKeywords: Media, lie, ethics, word choice, words, politics, false statements SIGNATURE PAGE We the undersigned, certify that

Documents