Chaos. If there is one word to describe the state of the world right now it would be chaos. When innocent civilians are collateral damage in wars across the world, when political scandals and trials surface on every news outlet, when our rights are being infringed upon by laws, it can feel necessary to use our voices to incite change.
The far reach of social media has made supporting a cause more accessible than ever before. We are bombarded with a blur of headlines and calls to activism that pressure us to speak up. But some feel that this comes with an unspoken “obligation” to assist and involve ourselves in solving these issues. Online, we fear the criticism of staying silent in times of turbulence or “taking away attention from the issue” by “flaunting” the positive aspects of our lives. So we repost, we spread, we chant the central message.
The “not choosing is still choosing” mentality can be quite overwhelming to overcome. It may feel as though taking an extreme opinion is the only way to matter at all; that middle ground is playing it safe and not making a difference. But when intricate conflicts are presented to you, surmising conclusions without an in-depth understanding of the issue is irresponsible and unfair to all parties involved.
The world we find ourselves in today is intensely divided. Complex stories are often simplified into digestible, appetizing headlines to grab readers’ attention and keep them engaged. In this process, the middle ground is usually boiled off, as it is far less sensationalizing, and what is left are two extremes with intensely polarizing views; views that more easily allow us to dehumanize the opposing party and diminish our compassion and respect for them.
As a publication adhering to the ethical standards of journalism, the Talon actively attempts to not contribute to the noise that continues to divide and polarize our communities. To ensure quality and impartiality in our content, every article goes through several rounds of rewriting and editing where, at a minimum, five people check the work before it goes to publication.
This is a process ingrained in our Editorial Policy. Though not infallible, we aim to produce and publish with the utmost integrity, integrity derived from impartiality and a commitment to the truth. In serving the Oak Park community, we are committed to adhering to these standards.
But, the commitment to integrity should not be limited to the press. There also exists a civic responsibility, a side of the bargain that we now urge our readers to uphold. If we are to be accountable journalists, it is also on the general public to be conscientious consumers. We implore our readers and our school community to take an active role in preventing blunt misinformation from leading the narrative.
The choice to not consider opposing perspectives is perhaps the most unfortunate way in which conflict is stirred and intensified. While gravitating to a certain viewpoint is expected, not exposing yourself to diverse sources of opinion and information is inexcusable – it is to cheat yourself of knowledge and to be content in your ignorance.
Increasingly so, we are seeing well-established news outlets use inflammatory language to push a certain agenda or sway their audience. While inflammatory language in its nature is assertive, the way it transforms our perspectives can be much more subtle, unnoticeable at times – and herein lies the danger.
In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, a study by DoubleVerify provided an Inflammatory News Index that took the nation’s pulse in terms of media consumption. They identified “coded language, blatant opinion statements, extreme or exaggerated claims, incitement to political violence and the use of slurs when referring to public figures” across multiple publications, in articles that were published as hard news.
When Kamala Harris was announced as Biden’s running mate on Aug. 11, 2020, DoubleVerify measured media consumption with a “12% higher Inflammatory News Index,” based on their criteria, in nine swing states vital to the election. This became a consistent trend. The states with the closest elections “[did not have] an Inflammatory News Index rate lower than the average of all other states on any single day since the announcement.”
The Latino Reporter, a media organization that highlights Hispanic student journalists, analyzed how publications like The Washington Post, Associated Press, Wall Street Journal and CNN use phrases that connote natural disasters, such as “surge,” “wave” or “flood,” to describe the migrant crisis at our country’s southern border. These terms have been criticized as dehumanizing, likening refugees to catastrophe or an invading army.
“The use of the word ‘surge’ needs to be eliminated from mainstream American newsrooms that still fail to cover immigration stories in the more accurate context of a yearslong humanitarian refugee crisis principally caused by US policy,” journalist Julio Ricardo Varela wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
From the headlines of articles down to terms and word choices, unchecked media has the potential to confirm preconceived beliefs. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that we recognize this bias and approach subjects with impartiality. While it is impractical to expect everyone to deep-dive into every headline they read, it is not unreasonable to expect people to research the topics they advocate for. When we apply moderate skepticism to the information we consume, we become much more alert to its intricacies, and this awareness can have a large impact on our views of the subject as a whole.
Neutrality does not have to be the destination of your opinion – it rarely is – but it should be a guiding force at the beginning of your journey. It should allow you to navigate even nuanced and charged information with fortitude and clarity.
We are far from a major news outlet. Our audience is this high school and the surrounding community of Oak Park. But we believe that what we write and publish still matters. We believe, still, that journalism is the backbone of democracy, a tool for meaningful change—because of the readers who embrace it. If we, as a publication and school community, can commit ourselves to be deliberate consumers, conscious readers and independent thinkers, we can promote civic discussion – the type of discussion that encourages bipartisan solutions for the issues that polarize our society.
