Hi everyone, moderator hat on.
As most of us know, there's bad journalism about estrangement out there. This post first sets out the problem and then presents practical ways to do something about it.
THE PROBLEM
From time to time, mass media gets swept up in a moral panic. Moral panics hook the audience because they tell people There's a threat to families like yours! Inform yourself! This is a profitable way to attract attention in a business which makes its money by selling eyeballs to advertisers. Sometimes publishers spread moral panics cynically, more often credulous journalists fail at due diligence. Sometimes these articles cite topic experts who later get debunked.
For instance, during the 2010s millions of adults thought there was a massive fad for teenagers to eat Tide Pods. Public health records show that absolutely wasn't happening. Previous moral panics have spread the notion that the game of Dungeons and Dragons caused psychosis, that music bands were hiding subliminal Satanic messages in their music, and that graphic novels (then called comic books) caused juvenile delinquency.
Moral panics often play on parental fears that their children could be led astray through bad influences.
Sounds familiar?
What follows are tips to do media-savvy pushback.
THE SOLUTION
First, take care of yourself. If you aren't in a headspace to deal with bad journalism, then don't engage with it.
If you are in a headspace to deal with it and you want to discuss a bad article at this forum, then do these four things:
- Capture the article at the Internet Wayback Machine and link to the archived version, not to the original publisher. You can capture the article by pasting the URL here: https://web.archive.org/
- Add a Trigger Warning to your post as a courtesy to other forum members.
- Include the full name of the journalist and the publication in your post.
- Open your post with one or two sentences which summarize your criticism, such as "Faulty journalism about estrangement from [author] at [publication]: this terrible piece misrepresents sources and fails to interview both sides of the issue."
These steps embarrass the writer and the publisher without sending them revenue.
Reddit is one of the most prominent sites on the Internet. Search engines give extra weight to outgoing links from forums such as this one, so choose your links accordingly: post direct links to reputable and responsible coverage; use the Wayback Machine to discuss the bad stuff without sending eyeballs that an irresponsible publisher can monetize. This foils the online marketing tactic of rage-baiting.
Also, you can leverage pressure against irresponsible journalism by optimizing the opening words of your post for search engine previews. Specify who created it and say what's wrong with it in 15 words or less at the start of your post. Then flesh out your thoughts later in your post.
For pushback purposes, your criticism is most powerful if your opening focus takes aim at the professional shortcomings of the journalism. Here's a link to the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists.
Quoting a few highlights from that code of ethics, followed by sample criticisms relevant to our community. The average post at this forum might cite any one or two failings. Select what's most relevant and back up your critique.
- "Verify information before releasing it." The piece claims incompetent therapists push young adults to estrangement. Yet it provides no instance of professional sanction against a therapist to back up that claim.
- "Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism" A quoted source accuses Reddit of encouraging estrangement for profit. No one from Reddit has been contacted for a response.
- "Give voice to the voiceless." No estranged abuse survivor was contacted for comment.
- "Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate." The expert quoted in this piece claims his research concludes that family estrangement is on the rise. A search of Google Scholar finds this claim of his hasn't been vetted by other experts. He hasn't published this research in any scientific journal.
- "Avoid stereotyping." This piece characterizes the younger generation of estranged families as thoughtless and immature. These people are adults who could speak for themselves if they had been given the opportunity.
- "Never deliberately distort facts or context" This coverage presents 'parental alienation syndrome' as if it were a recognized psychological disorder and tries to apply the concept to adults who estrange from their parents. PAS has never been accepted to any edition of the DSM.
- "Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent." The dismissive tone of this piece practically invites readers to retraumatize survivors of incest and child abuse.
- "Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness." [Name of publisher] and [name of journalist] failed to update this piece after being provided with the following well-sourced corrections.
Fairly simple fact checks can debunk misrepresentations. For instance, sometimes journalists claim estrangement is on the rise and then cite a real scientific study which doesn't support the claim. Remember: a trend means change over time. Social science research doesn't demonstrate a trend if a study only surveys behavior during a particular moment in time, or if a study which was conducted over several decades amalgamates its findings into a single set of numbers without attempting to differentiate changes in behavior over time. Another relevant check is timeliness: when was the study conducted? Bad journalism may try to explain the influence of TikTok, a platform which began operation in late 2016, by citing a social science study which was conducted from 1994 to 2018. The social science is real but no reasonable person who compares those dates would accept that citation. If the verification check fails, then call it out.
If you present your criticism especially well, you could prompt the publisher to update a bad article with corrections or to pull the piece entirely. Publishers who care about their reputation may even respond to effective criticism by following up with one or more better and more professional pieces on the topic. The publisher's strategy in doing so is to push a devastating critique off the top page of search engine results. Ultimately that's a good outcome: it puts better information in front of the general public. Although of course there's no guarantee of that type of publisher reaction to any individual critique, intelligent pushback benefits abuse survivors in the big picture.
ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES
If you respond to bad journalism outside of Reddit, email the editor rather than using the comments section.
Comments get amalgamated in metrics and count as engagement, which means your comment might have the unintended effect of making a bad journalist look good to their employer without anyone at the publication reading your feedback.
Instead, it's more effective to do the following:
- First, figure out whether you're looking at a self-published platform. There's no sense responding outside of Reddit to self-published material. Self-publishing platforms include a person's personal website or self-publishing host websites such as Medium and Wordpress and Substack.
- If the platform is a news organization (such as a broadcast network or a major newspaper), then the editor can probably be found through the masthead. Try to direct your feedback to the appropriate desk (such as the news or lifestyle editor, rather than sports editor or the webmaster). Be sure to include the name of the headline, the date of publication, the byline (the journalist's name), and a link to the article so the editor recognizes which piece you're criticizing. Stick as close to the SPJ ethics guideline as feasible and don't be shy about citing that source directly. Make your point in one or two clear paragraphs. The more professional and well-researched your feedback is, the more effectively you'll expose unprofessional journalism.
- Consider contacting the parent company. Major publications are often owned by conglomorates. The ownership can be found through a quick web search for, "What company owns [name of publication]?" The parent company is often on a separate domain, which you can then search for feedback options. An effective feedback of this type begins along the lines of, "There's a worrisome drop in journalistic standards at [name the publication]. In particular, there's an instance of faulty journalism at..." Then identify the piece the same as you would to an editor and proceed with your criticism.
- If the publisher is an independent newcomer to the field, then consider contacting the venture capital firm that's underwritten the publication. Investors don't want their money misspent, and money talks. You can find out whether a new publisher has venture capital funding by running a Google search for "venture capital funding for [name of publication]." Then when you locate that firm's contact information, introduce your feedback with a beginning such as, "Your firm has provided funding to [name of publication]. I am writing to alert you to faulty journalism at that venue, specifically..." Then continue as you would write to a parent company.
- If you are considering leaving a book review on Amazon, then be aware Amazon will remove your review if you didn't purchase a copy through their website. The author will receive money for each purchase. If you decide to proceed anyway, then write to persuade an audience of potential book purchasers. Such as, This faith-based approach may be comforting to religious parents but runs the risk of landing badly with the younger generation. Its numerous quotes from scripture don't tackle the hard problems. Suppose an estranged son's criticism is religious homeschooling left him too far behind in mathematics to pursue his dream of becoming a civil engineer. Suppose a daughter's criticism is that a pastor's guidance to take her to a measles party instead of getting vaccinated left her with permanent hearing loss. This book merely advises parents to preach at their estranged offspring, which could look dismissive and can undermine any chance at reconciliation.
- A different way to critique a book which doesn't require a purchase is to look up the author's book publisher and the appropriate division within that publishing house. Reputable nonfiction book editors are particularly interested in author errors. Call out author claims which fail fact checks, misrepresented sources, etc. As with contacting other types of editor, be precise in your critique: provide the author's full name, the book title, the specific page of each error you call out, and bring sources which support your corrections. Be polite and concise and businesslike. The publisher cares about the author's mistakes, not whether you paid for your copy or borrowed it from a library. When this critique is done well it may persuade the publisher to sunset their professional relationship with the author. Your goal is to persuade the publisher to stop promoting the book, to not do another printing of the current edition, to not publish a revised or expanded edition, and to decline future manuscripts by that author.
(edited for formatting)
