Photo by Graeme Jennings, from Washington Exami

On February 11, 2019, The Chicago Maroon published a breaking news update on an armed robbery at the University of Chicago. While there was no problem with the report itself, there was an immediate controversy over the featured image, that of a suspect led by a police man. Many readers thought this suspect looked like a potential minor, and believed that the photo of him will be detrimental to his future reputation and pursuit of a career. What was originally an effort to “present the facts” turned into a moral question of what the Maroon should and should not tell, or in this case, display.

As a response to reader outrage, 35 (updated) former and current Maroon staff members signed for the removal of the photo in their letter to the editor, published just one day later on February 12, 2019. My initial problem with the letter is how it revealed the internal disorder of the Maroon, in which editors were “not consulted before the photo’s publication, and the decision to keep the photo up was made unilaterally by Maroon leadership despite mounting opposition from numerous members of staff.” Even after this letter was published, the photo was never taken down from the original article, suggesting inefficient communication within the Maroon that I do not have access to to expound further.

How should the publication determine information access? Here, it seems that the minority of leadership won over the majority in choosing to use the photo. Why is this the case? Although I do not have an answer to this question, I do find it both considerate and scary that Maroon staff is touching on the accessibility of information. It’s considerate in the sense that, given reader dissent at the publication of this photo, the Maroon had people who also thought the photo perhaps would not be appropriate on a moral level when they were still in the process of creating the event report. Thus, staff members were considering the moral implications of the report, which does not suggest a deviation from the truth. Having concerns like this is both reasonable and commendable. On the other hand, I think it’s scary that the Maroon has the ability to not report certain information.

Several problems arise: what information should the Maroon disclose to the reader, what information does the reader want to read (or at least won’t be angered by), and how does the Maroon know what its readers want to read? Once these problems come into consideration by the publication, objectivity is in danger. But ironically, in the case of this robbery report, editors who signed for the removal of the photo believed that “publishing the photo perpetuates a false, racist, and dangerous narrative about crimes in and around Hyde Park that undermines our goal of accurate journalism.” They are actually speaking on behalf of the angry reader, but they also provide a paradoxical view that relaying information actually detracts from “accurate journalism,” which I interpret to be a form of objective journalism. In terms of the publication’s choice to provide access to certain information and not others, there is just more for us to ponder.

The case of the Maroon and the problem of access is applicable to any news and any journalistic platform. Specifically, for the Mueller case, I tended to think there is not only a problem of access of information for the general public but also for the reporters themselves. On March 14, 2019, CNN published an update that all 420 members of the House of Representatives voted unanimously in favor of the public release of Mueller report on his investigation of potential “Russian interference in the 2016 election,” but the resolution was stopped short in the Senate by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham. The reasoning behind this is that Graham does not want the Democrats to have the upper hand with new information that may be used to harm Republicans in the upcoming election. Graham is calling for an investigation of Clinton’s emails so that Republicans have an equal ability to backlash at the Democrats, but I believe Graham’s insistence is very selfish.

My concern is not with partisan self-interests, which is an everyday problem in American politics, but with the problem of access to information within the levels of government and between government and media platforms. The resolution passed by the House of Representatives calls for “whatever report Mueller gives the attorney general to be publicly released in full, with the exception of classified or grand jury information.” The problem here is that certain information is still not disclosed, thus the “full” picture is never granted. We come to see that even within the government, there exists different levels of access. The fact that the House and Senate are voting for the disclosure of the Trump-Russia case suggests they do not understand what is happening either, not to mention the American people.

How can the media access the truth if the government cannot do so in the first place? Well, it can’t, and so we entered the era of fake news. Since Trump’s election in 2016, the media has only been providing updates, which at times is merely sensationalized information that never happened. In the “Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook: Mueller Edition” by WYNC Studios, it states: “Overwhelming and extremely difficult to parse, filled with misfires, false alarms and intoxicating intrigue, the media have turned the saga of Mueller’s secret investigation into the best-worst crime drama never written.” What can account for this craziness in US media for the past four years? Three points made in the Consumer’s Handbook stood out to me:

• Has the reporter seen the evidence? That’s key, especially when the story relies on unnamed sources.
• The public might never see Mueller’s complete findings.
• The press may confuse Mueller’s whole report with the summary he must deliver to Congress (and on to us).

The first point makes clear why fake news is fake—the reporter may have never gathered or witnessed evidence in the first place. The second point is confusing, for I am unsure whether the “public” includes media/news companies, but it is nevertheless true, given my previous analysis that the “full” findings are not granted even to the House and Senate. The last point comes back to the power of fake news, which largely sways our perception of events in relation to the truth.

I have always been perplexed by why fake news became especially prominent during the Trump administration, and I have come to the conclusion that the limited access to the truth by the press, the increasing consumer demand for information, and in turn the increasing competition among media and news platforms have together spurred on the era of fake news. In a Hidden Brain episode on the news station, National Public Radio (NPR), “Fake News: An Origin Story,” Andie Tucher explains that news platforms tailor to the interests of their readers rather than pursuing the truth because intensive competition has convinced them they must move in this direction. In a time where information is communicated by the second, we have less patience to wait for the truth and take pleasure in knowing things that are favorable to us. In a time where news has become a market, competition has been constantly pushing journalists to produce content, sometimes at a pace faster than information may be disclosed or events occur. Thus many journalists can only produce fake content, as long as it satisfies consumer demand and outcompetes other media organizations. For each “breaking news” that is released to the public, the press is only breaking the news.

Works Cited

• “Breaking: Armed Robbery Suspects Apprehended on Campus as University Locks Down.” The Chicago Maroon, 11 Feb. 2019, www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/2/11/breaking-uchicago-says-shelter-place-2/.
• “Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook: Mueller Edition.” WNYC Studios, 1 March, 2019, www.wnycstudios.org/story/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-mueller-edition.
• “Fake News: An Origin Story.” National Public Radio, 25 June 2018, www.npr.org/2018/06/25/623231337/fake-news-an-origin-story.
• Foran, Clare. “House passes resolution calling for public release of Mueller report.” CNN, 14 March, 2019. www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/house-vote-mueller-resolution-public-release/index.html.
• “Letter: Maroon Editors Call for Removing Photo of Apprehended Young Man.” The Chicago Maroon, 12 Feb. 2019, www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/2/12/29-maroon-editors-call-removing-photo-apprehended/.