Click-bait news is ruining journalism, and the reasons why may surprise you

Find out just how horrible we think click-baiting articles are—the results will surprise you, or warm your heart, or blow your mind or any other sort of sensationalist affective response. We hate click-baiting; frankly, we would rather go back to the days of liking every semi-relatable page than see a News Feed littered with BuzzFeed, Thought Catalog and Upworthy posts. It hurts the public, it encourages groupthink and it hurts us—those who want to go into journalism.

For one thing, click-bait is obnoxious. “Watch a homophobic dude hug a gay person, the results will warm your heart.” Seriously? Aside from being annoying, it is almost guaranteed that any issue they are attempting to bring attention to is horribly reductionist. Two-minute videos or 10-point listicles are not going to explore the nuance of an important social issue, which many of these profess to do—especially those like Upworthy. By comparison, BuzzFeed quizzes are relatively harmless.

That these lists are so reductionist means that its readers are hurt in two ways. Readers think they are being informed, but in all likelihood they are not. How much nuance and debate is really permitted in a video of a rich white man smiling at a homeless guy, or putting disabled people on display as inspiration porn?

It might introduce someone to an issue, especially if it goes viral, but some people are led to believe that enough viewings of the cat-calling video make them an up-and-coming feminist theorist. This obviously isn’t the case.

Second, this false sense of knowledge might make us less inclined to want to pay for a New York Times subscription, or even less likely to look at news outlets that do go into more detail than BuzzFeed ever could. In addition to creating a largely under-informed population, these companies profit off work that is often done for free—and exploit their labor—while hurting journalists who do this for a living. And this is all because people cannot be bothered to look further than Upworthy.

Journalism is already in decline with newsstand sales dropping 10 percent in 2013, and the easy accessibility of these websites might prove even more damaging. What does this mean for us journalists and for readers of click-baity sites? Should they change or should we? We are inclined to believe the latter—the devaluing of journalists’ hard work is hurting you and us.

We and other media writers work hard and we deserve recognition and pay for our work, and the same is true for the unpaid contributors to click-bait sites. They are being exploited, and your short attention-span is also being exploited as you spend your precious time reading listicles instead of learning about what is actually going on.

Hide some of these websites from your News Feed, spend some more time learning about the world. The results may surprise you.

Staff Editorial: Increasing voter turnout will require more than bipartisan efforts

This last Election Day produced the worst voter turnout since 1942—only 36.3 percent of eligible voters actually voted. Young liberals lament the fact that the Republican Party took control of the United States Senate. A majority of young people voted Democrat, as expected, but only 13 percent of young people voted. As political analysts everywhere are asking, why the low turnout? Although an abysmal 28.8 percent of the eligible population in New York came out, it’s worth noting that the GOP has caught up to the Democrats in the key under-30 demographic. In North Carolina, the Democrats only got 54 percent of the young vote this year, compared to the 71 percent Democratic Senate candidates received in 2008. This trend could easily continue, but it will not make a difference until a more significant percentage of youths show up on Election Day.

With constant sharing and re-sharing of political news on Facebook and Twitter feeds, one would think young people would be more inclined than ever to vote. But Americans are increasingly losing faith in the government—particularly the two-party system—and perhaps this lack of faith has become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. We become disgruntled, we feel our votes don’t matter, too many of us stop voting and then those who do really don’t matter.

Everyone has that one friend on Facebook who reminds you every year, “If you didn’t vote, you can’t complain.” But corporations own Congress and, understandably, voters feel the fruitlessness of voting. Their measly vote won’t fix the gerrymandering, the tradition of buying votes or the broken two-party system. The well-meaning Facebook friend has a point, though. Not voting is not going to change anything, especially if the numbers keep shrinking and the views of millennial aren’t represented by their votes.

What will motivate voters, then? Maybe the increasing number of GOP seats in the House and Senate will motivate liberal voters to go out next time. Perhaps this round will be a wake-up call. Frankly, it is one thing to simply voice your opinion on the government, but there are more effective ways to introduce change, whether through voting, lobbying or other kinds of activism.

It might be more accurate, then, to say, “You cannot complain if you are doing nothing.” After this election, voting might become more effective as more people vote—especially those who complain about the money in politics and want to get it out of politics.

A major movement toward third-party voting might be beneficial. The idea of stepping outside of the two-party system seems absurd, but young voters are more apt to see that the parties are not as different as the media makes them out to be. A major movement—targeting millennials, especially—to vote third party might make young voters feel as if they can make some sort of difference.

Catcalling video’s educational value overshadowed by racism

 A recent video has gone viral for its depiction of one woman’s encounters with catcalls in New York City. The results are reprehensible, and the video appears to be a good way of showing the reality of what women face on a daily basis. In addition to highlighting the problem of catcalling, the video inadvertently exposes severe racial biases associated with catcalling. In the video, actress Shoshana Roberts—a white woman—is seen stoically walking and is subjected to intrusive comments from passersby. The comments, however, come from men almost exclusively of color .A recent video has gone viral for its depiction of one woman’s encounters with catcalls in New York City. The results are reprehensible, and the video appears to be a good way of showing the reality of what women face on a daily basis. In addition to highlighting the problem of catcalling, the video inadvertently exposes severe racial biases associated with catcalling.

It seems unlikely that in 10 hours of walking in New York City, the only men to catcall Roberts were men of color. In fact, the video’s director Rob Bliss addressed this problem. “We got a fair amount of white guys,” he said. “But for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing or off camera.”

Omitting white men from the video due to getting poor shots is at best lazy editing and at worst perpetuates harmful stereotypes of men of color.

There is a long legacy regarding men of color being viewed as lascivious threats to “pure” white women. National anxiety over cohabitation between black men and white women was a major factor in the passage of legislation banning interracial marriage. Furthermore, these anxieties made even speaking to white women dangerous for black men at that time. Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy, was famously killed in 1955 after allegedly whistling at a white woman in a Mississippi grocery store. An all-white jury later acquitted his killers of all charges.

Even if the director’s aim was not to eliminate white men, it is conceivable that his own implicit biases—like what he determines to be “extreme” forms of street harassment are—shaped the result of what was kept and what was erased. Discussing feminism and street harassment in a context that privileges whiteness, however, does not help women. In fact, racial and gender stereotypes often work in tandem to create a greater threat to women of color when they are viewed as sexually available or promiscuous, more so than white women.

This is why discussions about any sort of equality warrant an intersectional perspective—that is, one that takes into account various factors that change both power dynamics and popular perspective. Even if white men were to harass women in different ways, it is still discomforting and worth talking about. If we only focus on the most extreme cases, we risk erasing many women’s stories while simultaneously reinforcing racist stereotypes.

Yik Yak, college campuses and the problem of anonymity

SUNY Canton cancelled classes on Oct. 23 over anonymous threats on the popular social media application Yik Yak. At Pennsylvania State University, anonymous students made similar threats, including detailed descriptions of weaponry. Yik Yak is a completely anonymous app that is gaining popularity on college campuses. Its anonymous nature allows its users to be completely candid and unapologetic about what they are thinking. But anonymous threats, like those at SUNY Canton and Penn State, pose serious threats to student safety raises serious questions about anonymity and how we should view such an app.

For better or worse, the Yik Yak community is self-moderating. When a “yak” receives “upvotes”—often up to several hundred—it goes to the top of the “Hot” section. If it gets five “downvotes,” it is automatically removed. On the one hand, Yik Yak is a wonderful way to build community and share information quickly, especially on college campuses. Students bond over what is happening on Yik Yak, and there is a budding culture surrounding it.

In early October, news of a potential hate crime against a transgender student at Geneseo surfaced and news spread quickly via Yik Yak. Some “yaks” were hateful and others were supportive but regardless, it got people talking. “Trans? Fine by me,” held by Pride Alliance and Women’s Action Coalition, helped dispel many of the misconceptions expressed on Yik Yak.

People are also able to talk about their problems. Anonymous users can express discontent, bad grades or serious mental health problems and receive support in the form of upvotes or replies. People also share jokes—sometimes funny, sometimes mediocre or stolen from other forms of social media. There is far less potential for building meaningful relationships because there is no formalized user recognition, but perhaps this is what adds to the fun of it.

On the other hand, anonymity can be dangerous. Now, when you make a social blunder or fall in public, you need to make sure you yak about it before someone else does. Occasionally, users name other students and make comments about them, or there are passive-aggressive yaks about annoying roommates, noisy chewers or overly participant classmates. Whether positive or negative, being the subject of a rude, anonymous post is an uncomfortable experience, especially considering that not everyone is on Yik Yak. If you are yakked about, you might never know.

This has the potential for serious abuses, such as those seen on other anonymous websites which have waxed and waned throughout the years. It might be only a matter of time before something serious—like a suicide or a realized threat—comes to fruition and the conversation arises again.

As any anonymous website does, Yik Yak has major pros and cons. It might be only a matter of time before it gets shut down, or before more comprehensive standards are put in place in schools for dealing with such anonymous crimes like that at Penn State or SUNY Canton. Yik Yak is certainly sparking conversation, regardless.

How race shapes the relationship between police and community

Keene, New Hampshire was the site of widespread riots that left many injured, dozens arrested and extensive damage to property. The impetus for these riots? A pumpkin festival, held every year in the city of Keene. Students from nearby Keene State College were the primary instigators in the riot. Police responded with pepper spray and nonlethal measures to suppress the rowdy throngs of students, who flipped cars and shouted expletives at police officials. Other than the destruction wrought by the students, the riots came and went with minimal serious incidents.

If you contrast the Pumpkin Fest riots with the events of Ferguson, Missouri, however, they take on a far more damning significance. The mostly-white crowds in New Hampshire––who were openly hostile toward police and posed a real threat to their community––received approximately the same response from police as peaceful protesters including journalists in Ferguson.

For those who deny that white privilege manifests in tangible ways in the 21st century, explain this: if you’re white in 2014, you can curse out a police officer and flip a car and expect to be treated the same as a black American peacefully protesting the killing of an unarmed teenager.

This highlights the differing relationships communities across the United States have with their police forces. In majority white cities such as Keene, police use rational, measured responses to quell chaos. In Ferguson, police officers arrest peaceful protesters with reckless abandon and kill teenagers with guns.

In Brownsville, a poverty-ridden majority black and Latino neighborhood in Brooklyn, the New York Police Department is experimenting with the tactic of “omnipresence.” Under omnipresence, the NYPD has set up massive floodlights that are meant to illuminate public parks, street corners or anywhere that low-level street crime might take place. Police officers monitor these areas from a distance, ready to intervene if they see something suspicious.

In this sense, omnipresence is founded upon an inherent distrust of the population of Brownsville, the same distrust upon which racial profiling is based. Actively seeking out criminals does nothing to stymie the causes of crime; those are problems that local governments rarely, if ever, address.

In Keene, citizens need to actually give police a reason to act before they do. In Brownsville, they are already there waiting to pounce. These imbalanced dynamics between police and the people they are supposed to serve and protect are at the heart of the riots that take place.

In Ferguson, protesters demonstrated against police brutality because of the killing of an unarmed teen. In Keene, rioters tore up the town because, as one rioter put it, “It’s a blast to do things that you’re not supposed to do.”

Maher's statements indicate wider ignorance of Islam

Comic Bill Maher displayed a shocking level of ignorance on his show “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Oct. 3 when he and a panel of guests discussed the absence of liberal principles in the so-called Muslim world. Even by the normally glib Maher’s standards, this segment was particularly cringeworthy. Maher and author Sam Harris discussed how the Muslim world lacks “liberal principles” such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality for women and LGBTQ-plus equality. In doing so, Maher and Harris displayed a laughably misguided perception of what constitutes the Muslim world.

The problems the group referred to are mainly prevalent in the Middle East and North Africa, which, according to the Pew Research Center, comprise roughly 20 percent of the global Muslim population. It is of the utmost importance not to conflate a geopolitical problem with a religious one, which is exactly what Maher and Harris did.

Muslim-majority countries across the world have managed to avoid the sociopolitical problems seen in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan—Indonesia, Turkey and Malaysia are prime examples.

It is also worth noting that the countries with extremist governments have a history of collaboration with the United States. Saudi Arabia––who we have supported and relied on for oil for decades––is one of our closest allies in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, the Taliban—responsible for so many of the egregious institutions Maher and Harris cite—was trained and armed by the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1980s to combat the Soviet Union invasion.

Maher and Harris continued to call on moderate Muslims to condemn extremism and for the U.S. to help equip moderates to take power. This is offensive in its own right. Asking Muslim moderates to apologize for the actions of extremists aligns the two groups in a completely nonsensical manner. Christians do not feel the need to apologize for the words of the Westboro Baptist Church; that organization’s doctrine is so far divorced from that of mainstream Christianity. Furthermore, how can moderate Muslims be expected to work with Americans when our rhetoric is so disgustingly ignorant?

The talking points Maher and Harris brought up were sadly not controversial. In fact, audience members responded with applause. Americans have let post-Sept. 11 anxieties of terrorism blind them to the reality that Islam is a fundamentally peaceful belief system inasmuch as Christianity, Judaism or any other mainstream religion.

When we allow our basic understanding of Islam to be misconstrued, innocent people suffer. According to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, hate crimes against Muslims grew by an unnerving 1,600 percent following Sept. 11. In order to make the U.S. and the world a safer place to live, we must start with a more tolerant and informed view of Islam.υ

In wake of attack, a call for productive discussion about transphobia

A transgender Geneseo student was assaulted on Court Street on Sept. 26. Witnesses say that assailant Roric Brown was yelling homophobic slurs at the student. Despite defenses from Brown claiming that it was merely drunken stupidity, this does not preclude the incident from being considered a hate crime. It is unsurprising that people who would otherwise be quick to condemn a hate crime are just as quick to defend the assailant when it is their friend. Much of the conversation, however, has revolved around the fact that a transgender student was attacked. Many are claiming that it is silly, even “politically correct,” to cry hate crime while bar fights happen all the time.

Many students have taken to social media to show pity for or even disagree with Brown’s arrest, with unfortunate consequences. If the conversation turns to questioning Brown’s guilt, it turns away from the much more important issue at hand: violence against transgender people.

Silence on this topic proves dangerous––or even deadly––for the transgender community, who are 28 percent more likely to experience physical violence than cisgender people—people whose gender identity matches the gender they were assigned at birth.

According to a report released by the Anti-Violence Project, 78 percent of transgender people have experienced harassment and 35 percent have experienced sexual assault. They also suffer higher rates of unemployment, lower salary and harassment in homeless shelters, doctor’s offices and public transportation.

Why then, considering these circumstances, do so many students continue to question Brown’s guilt? People are defending his transphobic actions on the basis that he was drunk, that bar fights happen all the time or that the gender identity of the victim was not a related factor.

Some students cannot seem to grasp that Brown committed second-degree harassment on the basis of the student’s gender identity. Now is not the time to derail the conversation by proclaiming that “we’re all equal” when this is a clear example of pervasive inequality. Perhaps the defensive responses are in part due to misconceptions, but the larger social issue cannot be ignored.

It is important to note that some of the most hateful comments are coming from Yik Yak, an app that allows users to make anonymous posts and displays them by geographical location. The coinciding of the app’s popularity with the incident is perhaps an unfortunate one—it raises important questions about how much such an app contributes to campus culture and in this case, how anonymity can be conducive to further bullying, ignorance and toxicity.

If any good can come of this incident, it is perhaps in the dialogue it can start among students about LGBTQ-plus issues in our community, and moreover, how our campus can move forward in creating a safe space for honest and open discussion and education.

Emma Watson's celebrity most "empowering" part of U.N. speech

Actress and United Nations Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson delivered a speech at the U.N. in conjunction with its new “HeForShe” campaign. The speech, which essentially says that feminism is about equality, has been described as “groundbreaking” or even “game-changing.” In reality, the most groundbreaking part of it was the fact that it was Watson giving the speech. Watson is obviously a good role model for young girls and she is extremely famous. Tasking her with delivering speech on feminism at a U.N. conference was not a bad idea in order to make it as accessible as possible to those—and there are many—who are not open to feminism.

Unfortunately, the truth is that Watson is only one of many very privileged women (or men) to say something very rudimentary about feminism and get disproportionate attention for it.

Nothing she said is new. Feminists were saying the same thing decades ago, and there is more ground to be traversed than “feminism is for men too.”

We do not blame Watson for her decision to adhere to the gentlest definition of feminism, considering there is so much hostility toward it. Moreover, she is receiving threats after saying practically nothing about feminism. But, if that’s the case, she probably could have said something of far more substance with a similar outcome.

Her appeal to gain male allies is important, but not new and certainly not the most important aspect of feminism. The most important part of having male allies for feminism is their ability to integrate feminist ideals into different spaces, especially those that are male-dominated.

Watson is also not incorrect in saying that feminism helps men too—it does. But rather than women having to make space in feminism for men to fit in, men should be making space in, you know, nearly every sphere of life for women so they are not at a disadvantage.

It is also difficult to ignore the lack of attention to other related issues. While she speaks to the entire U.N., Watson’s examples of oppression in underdeveloped countries are true, but more often than not these sorts of examples lead to a colonialist gaze that ignores the plethora of problems in industrialized nations. We live in a country where our politicians vote against an equal pay bill. Not that we shouldn’t focus on this, but there are far more issues at stake (like sexual assault or women being incarcerated for miscarriages) than those affecting the most privileged, like Watson herself.

All in all, the speech was underwhelming and oversimplified. It’s 2014—you shouldn’t need to tell men that their sisters, daughters or mothers are at stake to make them care about women.

Miss America broadens the horizons of "beautiful"

Beauty pageants are often considered superfluous, if not damaging. And many are. Miss America, however, stands out as a pageant that looks at women and their talents holistically while raising awareness about important issues. Every year, Miss America moves forward to better represent women. In the Miss America competition this month, several Miss America candidates had disabilities. Miss Michigan K.T. Maviglia has moderate hearing loss and donned her hearing aid during the competition. Miss Kentucky Ramsey Carpenter––who won the talent competition––is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and used the disease as her service platform. Miss Idaho Sierra Sandison made history by wearing her insulin pump during the swimsuit competition.

Relative to most beauty pageants, Miss America is a shining example of what a pageant ought to be: the women competing must be in college or college graduates, have a public platform for community service and there is a rigorous interview process. The women are not judged exclusively on their looks, but rather their entire being.

The fact that Miss America showed some of the most accomplished young women—many of whom are disabled—is a huge step towards changing public perspective on disability. Especially in the case of visible disabilities, people are often treated poorly if not completely ignored. It is only one step, but Miss America took a radical step in showing these women, their talents and their personality alongside their disability.

But even if Miss America is moving forward relative to the mainstream media, the United States overall is still far behind. The pageant has only had nine women of color who have been crowned miss America. When Nina Davuluri became the first Indian woman to win Miss America last year, her victory proved controversial.

While Davuluri’s victory received a largely positive response, there was some xenophobic backlash from prejudiced viewers. The backlash was racist and rooted in the absurd idea that to be American is to be white. In a small way, Miss America is challenging these notions of what it means to be American and to represent America.

Miss America candidates often base their service platforms upon important issues. Miss Arkansas’s platform was Defying Disabilities and she finished in the top three. This year's winner, Miss New York Kira Kazanstev, will go on a national speaking tour about domestic violence.

Even though the pageant is slowly working toward better representation of women, it is important to note that most contestants are still overwhelmingly thin, white, straight and able-bodied. One can only hope this will improve with time. Kylan Arianna Wenzel competed for Miss California as the first ever transgender contestant in any Miss Universe Organization pageant.

The current representation of women in Miss America is an incredible first step toward further diversifying beauty pageants, including their own. With increasing diversity across the board, we should look forward to seeing an expansion of what America considers to be beautiful.

The NFL's epic mishandling of the Ray Rice situation

Former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice was an All-Pro, Super Bowl champion. The New Rochelle, New York native and Rutgers University graduate was, by all accounts, a model citizen who gave back. Rice proved everyone wrong last February. Rice and his fiancée Janay Rice (née Palmer) were arrested and charged with assault in an Atlantic City casino on Feb. 15. That same month, TMZ released a video of Rice dragging an unconscious Palmer out of an elevator. Despite this, charges against Rice were dropped after he agreed to undergo counseling. National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell levied a measly two-game suspension on Rice.

As ridiculous as this is, the NFL suspended Cleveland Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon for a full season (16 games) for testing positive for marijuana.

It wasn’t until this week that Rice was suspended indefinitely by the NFL and cut by the Baltimore Ravens. Why? Because TMZ released a new video of Rice punching Palmer twice, spitting in her face and knocking her unconscious. This video, however, matched the court reports about what transpired. It is not new information.

According to a Baltimore Sun interview, Ravens general manager Ozzie Newsome was asked if Rice’s story about what happened that February night was consistent with the video. “What we saw on the video is what Ray said. Ray didn’t lie to me,” Newsome said. Now, there are rumors that Newsome––one of the top GMs in the NFL––could lose his job.

Moreover, the video was reportedly sent to the NFL by law enforcement, but the league didn’t take any action against him until it went public. It is obvious that the two-game suspension was a slap on the wrist and the indefinite suspension was only put into place to save face.

This should have been done in the first place; the fact that it was not put into place to begin with speaks volumes about our society’s skewed ideas of what does and does not deserve retribution.

The NFL has revised its domestic violence and sexual assault policy to a six game suspension for the first offense and a lifetime ban for the second offense. This is not enough, especially considering the fact that NFL enjoys nonprofit status, meaning that the NFL and their repugnant leniency towards abusers is subsidized by taxpayers.

Sports media have also played a role in this travesty. Fox Sports personality Katie Nolan, like many women in sports media, is a facilitator. She transitions to commercials and lets her male peers provide analysis. On her YouTube channel, Nolan issued a challenge to the entire industry.

“The NFL will never respect women and their opinions as long as the media it answers to doesn’t,” she said.

Hackers to blame for nude photo leak, not celebrities

The recent leak of celebrity nude photos raises several ethical and pragmatic issues. Most importantly, it goes without saying that pictures that are meant for the eyes of a few should not be leaked to many. Taking nude photos is not illegal, but it is illegal--not to mention immoral--to leak those photos without permission. 

Aside from the fundamental violation of privacy, the leak of celebrities' nude photos raises several important issues, two being the increasing security necessary online, and the duty for the news media to report responsibly.

First, the fact that hackers could access celebrities’ iCloud accounts means that there exists a potential to access other sensitive information via iCloud, such as credit card numbers and social security numbers. 

What if there were an even more massive leak? With the increasing necessity to share sensitive information online, few would be safe. That being said, two-step verification log-ins are increasingly necessary. 

Apple currently offers this. It works by sending a verification code to a designated “trusted device” before allowing you--or anyone--to log into an unknown device. Many users are unaware of this feature, or simply want to avoid the hassle of waiting for a verification code while logging in on a different device. 

In the long-term, the additional few moments it takes to log in could save users a lot of trouble.

Second, the celebrity nude photo leak would arguably have been less of a spectacle if the media had reported on it more responsibly--or perhaps even less. This incident illustrates a textbook example of the Streisand effect.

In 2003, Barbara Streisand--a rather private person--had photos of her residence leaked. She made an extensive effort to have the photos removed, but ultimately, this effort resulted in extensive media coverage. Media coverage allowed people to hear about the pictures who might have never known otherwise. Once their interest had been piqued, they naturally sought out the pictures, the media covered the ever-growing leak, ad nauseam. 

While Streisand certainly did not deserve to have photos of her residence leaked, the intimate nature of nude photos adds an even more perverse element. The leaking of celebrities' nude photos exemplifies a culture of self-entitlement. When anyone takes intimate pictures, it is the lawful and ethical responsibility of the recipient to keep those photos private. Just because a burglar can break your window to access your possessions does not mean he should.

In both cases, the leaked photos could have arguably reached fewer people had the media avoided such extensive reporting (we say this with a wry self-awareness). But even if the media had not discussed the leaked photos, it is likely that people would have found out anyway via social media, especially in the celebrities' cases. 

Regardless, seeking out what one should not seek out might be a human character flaw, but extensive and redundant reporting is certainly not the remedy.