As much as we would like to believe that multi-media doesn’t shape our perceptions–ranging from the organization of your house to geopolitics–what has been increasingly normalized and modernized is the rate at which information is being fed to us. Yes, it is very helpful to have the internet constantly at our fingertips, to have AI a chat away, and to have influencers giving us constructed arguments on hot topics, but it is quite problematic. We have all the tools at our disposal to be more successful and more knowledgeable than previous generations, and yet we are unable to decipher the daily flood of information. When fact-checking and knowing what news outlets are trustworthy consumes an egregious amount of effort compared to our ability to absorb news, it begins to cause paralysis, fatigue, and avoidance. This is where my whirlwind of questions for this project begins.
I just think: if this modern way of consumption is flawed, is this caused by an issue in distribution? Social media is a major factor in distribution, but by focusing on the start of circulation–news publications–distortion can be identified in some capacity. It raises questions such as whether high-quality journalism is being drowned out by its association with skepticism, conspiracy theories, and personal disagreements, or whether numerous platforms of media are now heavily monetized, creating a turn from genuine content to a version focused on engagement. Nowadays, the quickest way to achieve high levels of engagement for the most money is to ragebait. According to Merriam-Webster, ragebait refers to an attempt to provoke anger or outrage, as a means of gaining attention or making money. Within mainstream news, this financial incentive often instigates negatively manipulated stereotypes, hyper-partisan narratives, or a criminalized framing of people of color. There are examples of blunt antagonism, both online and in person. But the more common form is subtler–an insinuation of hostility, neglect, and/or ignorance, largely carried out by major publications. This phenomenon is far more than offensive headlines and has life-or-death consequences. Real manifestations of this have contributed to the deaths of Tamir Rice (a 12-year-old), Michael Brown (an 18-year-old), Ahmaud Arbery (a 25-year-old), and Breonna Taylor (a 26-year-old). I know these stories, and too many of them have been covered from a white-only perspective–this is one of my motivators for this project.
Within this displacement, there is an underlying bubbling of distrust; I have felt it, and I have experienced it. These questions keep leading me to think about where large corporations tend to misrepresent, stereotype, and create a false narrative that generates distrust for minorities and many others. And I genuinely believe that in this gap–where major publications are refusing to cover such important national and local instances that are happening to people of color–local ethnic publications and communities begin to do their work. Unfortunately, it is not on the same scale. With this, I hope to begin to understand the levels of distrust for major and ethnic publications, because the need for quality news and media has never been greater. It feels like we have so little information about what’s actually happening, especially in a way that is meaningful, uplifting, and accurate for the families and communities behind the stories, rather than just for clicks.