By PARKER BROCK
With the rise of the digital age, society is more connected and the spread of information, and misinformation, is much easier than ever before.
The Internet is easily accessible for a majority of people in this country, and because of that, they are able to exchange messages with people they have never met, or tweet 300 characters out into the world with little regard for the consequences.
There are rare repercussions for what one says online, so when something being said is aimed at triggering a response makes its way to the top of your feed, it’s easy to respond with your initial feelings.
From these types of interactions spawned call-out culture, or outrage culture, a term for the social phenomenon of publicly denouncing perceived racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other bigotries, according to story by the Atlantic on this phenomenon.
Call-out confrontations happen in the public forum of social media, where two people spare with their wit and intellect on display; both trying to claim the moral high ground or prove their argument correct.
This only furthers the divide between people, potentially tarnishing their public image with accusations, founded or unfounded, creating animosity.
The problem when it comes to click-bait headlines is that many people don’t read past the headline. A six-word headline or a shared post doesn’t convey the same information as reading a handful of well-reported stories.
But for many, these random headlines become their reality which can have a powerful polarizing effect on their views and beliefs, especially in today’s divided political climate.
An example of the effect of this can be seen in the 2016 presidential election. Evidence given to the U.S Senate showed companies like Facebook running targeted ads aimed at polarizing Americans over divisive issues like abortion and health care.
With a constant stream of videos and articles presenting events from widely different perspectives, it strengthens biases and reinforces trust in the same sources of media while destroying the credibility of the “other side.” Inaccuracies were created from hasty reporting combined with threads of viral posts, which cause real-world consequences.
Take the incident in Washington, D.C., with the Covington Catholic High School kids and Nathan Phillips, a Native American Vietnam veteran, at an anti-abortion rally. The video depicting Phillips chanting a prayer in a crowd of students wearing “Make America Great Again” hats, facing one boy in particular.
The image of Phillips spread across the country overnight, sparking outrage among many, claiming the group of students were a mob harassing Phillips and a group of fellow Native American marchers.
However, after further reporting, the context of the actions that really transpired came to light, with reports like CBSN proving information on another group involved named The Lost Tribe of Israel, a predominantly black Jewish religious group, who initially attempted to provoke people at the protest. The conflict escalated as more students gathered after the two groups exchanged words, then Phillips attempted to de-escalate the situation with the prayer.
This recount of events wasn’t available for a while, which cause many to jump to conclusions and take action against the people involved. The boy primarily pictured in the event has been the recipient of death threats, online harassment and general hate, while his actual actions may have been misportrayed. Covington Catholic High School did, however, issue an apology on behalf of the students.
The incident showed how quickly an event can be taken out of context and how it can be dangerous for the people involved.
But it’s easy to give in to anger, as the stories are often presented to be far more inflammatory; seeing friends or family also share these stories only reinforces that feeling as it is shared by a trust person.
When it comes to getting informed, relying on friends and family for information doesn’t always give the full picture, so doing your own research is becoming more of a necessity.
It has become far more difficult to find accurate information around these politically charged incidents due to the varying reports from the assorted news sources.
Looking at the Jussie Smollett alleged attack, we see the coverage and information presented change rapidly as it was unfolding in the headlines.
On Jan. 9, Smollett filed a report to the Chicago Police Department claiming he was confronted by two men spousing racial and homophobic slurs which escalated to violence where reportedly they “poured an ‘unknown chemical substance’ on him and wrapped a noose around his neck,” according to reporting by CBS news.
The public response to the initial reporting was outrage, many were using the incident as an example of the radicalizing effects caused by the president and his rhetoric.
This was the story for weeks until Feb. 15 when the two men who were detained due to their suspected involvement with the case were released from police custody.
Over the following days, it came to light that Smollett had paid the two men to stage the attack, and faked the police report. Smollet later turned himself into authorities was was charged with 16 felony counts for lying to police.
This story continues to be obfuscated as prosecutors dropped the charges against Smollet, while Chicago is now fining him $130,000 to pay for the costs of the investigation.
This story was thriving as it was continuously reported on and shared across social media, with people forming their own opinions based on their own views pertaining to the incident, regardless of the information given by Chicago Police Department.
Incidents like the Covington school protest and the alleged Smollet assault are reported and shared across social media and can warp public opinion. Before jumping to a conclusion that supports your preconceived ideas on an incident, do research and wait until a clear cut report comes out before joining an internet hate mob.