https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KVpU4I34vFZOBcXcmjg19qhDT2gT0w_W130-MkVBRhw/edit?usp=sharing

Due to this, I will introduce and add political-fake news as a type of clickbait (#10). It can be argued that it is the other way around- clickbait is a type of fake news. But I am arguing that political-fake news is a type of clickbait due to the desired click that needs to happen to generate money. Ever since the 2016 election, politics have been a hot topic for the past four years. There has been an enormous amount of political fake-news processed from both sides of the political candidates. As passionate as people are about Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, polarized individuals can’t help but click exaggerated and fake partisan headlines that bash the side that they hate. “Fake news, or hoax news, refers to false information or propaganda published under the guise of being authentic news” (Stroud, 2019, p.1). Using Soll (2016) as a backdrop,  I will present political-fake news as a medium of presenting false information implicitly or explicitly in favor or hatred of a political group, candidate, or events to shift [society] and formulate opinions against, or for a position on a falsified and insubstantial grounds. Much of the political-fake news headlines are biased and consists of: “Trump having affair with daughter and she will be running against him in 2020!”, “Hilary Clinton is spying on and reading your emails!”, etc. 

Political-fake news is used in motive to provide a confirmation bias or present a shock factor. The psychology and responsibility is geared towards those who are for example, far to the left or too far to the right on the political spectrum. Clickbait creators, most who are doing it for profit, know these types of content that will trigger their audience to click their headlines and articles: Donald Trump, Guns, the environment, immigration,  abortion, LGBTQ+, etc. I will present a syllogism in perspective of these creators: 

If Donald Trump is a popular topic [in favor or against], then I will create and present clickbait on this topic. If Donald Trump is not a popular topic [in favor or against], then I will not create or present clickbait on this topic. 

There is an emphasis on the word “popular.” Throughout the hundreds of political topics, if it is not popular then clickbait creators won’t create this content to fulfill political-fake news. For example, poverty in third world countries is an issue that many candidates have spoken about yet have not committed to. If this is a priority in a candidate’s campaign that causes controversy, then political-fake news creators will create, present, and post insubstantial news articles to the public about this either for or against.

“Duckface/Stoneface” was both an interesting and funny article to read. I never knew there were articles dedicated to identifying selfie/media stereotypes. This was written in 2013 and I believe little has changed from selfie stereotypes. I really enjoyed how these stereotypes had a lot to do with gender and provided insight to not only selfie stereotypes but gender stereotypes. 

One of the main claims is, “selfies and other online personal media genres used for self-presentation can be regarded as a terrain where children are audited and commented on by their peers as they together explore how to “do gender” (201). This is  important because we have access to “literally” see how pre/teens explore gender through mediums such as social media and selfies to see their level of conformity and how to “do gender.” 

In efforts to differentiate duckface vs. stone face. Duckface is a female stereotype that has to do with pouting lips and sucking in the cheeks. According to this article, it’s normal for girls to post many selfies, be interactive with the camera, and look pretty yet natural. For boys, you have to look unbothered, “stoneface” and selfies are not really okay, but mirror selfies are better. I believe this has to do with conserving a sense of masculinity and femininity. According to the standards we hold with social media, to conform to femininity you have to take and post selfies that align with celebrities and trends. To preserve masculinity, you have to look unbothered and not post selfies. 

Of course I disagree with many of what the interviewees say but obviously, they’re teens trying to conform to society doing and saying whatever they have to, to identify such as “too much styling gel can make you look gay.” 

I just started high school when this article was written. This was a couple years after instagram first started up and I believe selfies were a staple in conforming to the trends and use of social media. During this time, I believe it was truly all innocent and fun since the concept of duck face and stone face was relatively new. I believe that since this is a public forum, teens are trying to show the world what they’re like through conformity. Plus, if you were talking about someone, their social media was the perfect place to go. So in a sense, I believe this is all a “front’ that I’ve conformed to in high school because of “stalking.” I wanted to put on my best face for my school and the world to see. 

In Winner’s “Do artifacts have politics?” he examines the subtle and less obvious ways that politics sneak into our lives. At first, I thought it would be literal technology, such as tablets, phones, and computers. However, he creates a fascinating insight into technological systems such as bridges, structures, and machines. He believes that we ought to attend more closely to technical objects and how it’s situated. His main claim is, “Technical systems of various kinds are deeply interwoven in the condition of modern politics.” I believe what’s most interesting about this argument is how subtle and manipulative these concepts can be. Winner mentions Robert’s Moses infrastructure doing the 1920s-70s on Long Island. “Histories of architecture, city planning, and public works contain many examples of physical arrangements that contain explicit or implicit politi­cal purposes” (31). This goes to show Moses’ city planning of bridges that only fit cars and were not bus friendly. At first, this might seem innocent, but most minorities rode buses, therefore, they couldn’t get to where they needed to go. This is what Winner means that artifacts, DO in fact have politics. Another example he provides is McCormick’s reaper manu­facturing plant in Chicago that consisted of molding machines. This architecture at the time seems innovative, but given the context, it can be seen as implicitly political. This weaved the skilled workers who had organized the union local in Chicago and produced inferior castings.
To give insight to this, something I learned in my sociology class ties deeply this concept. In the 80s during the “say no to drugs era” if you possessed strong drugs such as cocaine, you were sentenced longer than possessing marijuana. During that time, minorities were the ones who possessed stronger drugs such as cocaine and were sentenced longer. However, I am not arguing that politics was a motivating factor behind it, but it might be an accidental, implicit, or consequential one.
I can see Winner’s claim applying to new media simply by the act of HAVING new media. Nowadays, everything that is transported and learned is through new media. With that being said, those who cannot afford interesting or do not know how to use it cannot keep up with what is going on. These people can consist of those in poverty, homelessness, the elderly, etc. Our society might deem this as being uneducated or misinformed due to not possessing the internet. Along with this, those in third world countries cannot express the help they need through this platform.
In Professor Werry’s “Imagined Electronic Community: Representations of virtual community in Contemporary Business Discourse”, he dissects the online communication and inclusivity within marketing strategies. A question I have is with this article being written in 1999, now being in 2019 online communities like Café Herpé has grown tremendously. How has this expanded for the better or for worse? Because it seems like nowadays there are online communities for a variety of things. But say group chats for people with AIDS, how do you determine who actually has it or just wants to chat for weird reasons? Along with that, is there paranoia associated with this?

1. Fake news is a major problem in today’s society. It is a subtle form of manipulation through the medium of a screen. Fake news can manifest itself through news articles, social media, and even conversations or speeches. This is a problem because of the effects it has on weighted issues. For example, if there is a proposition on the education system, you are casting to vote one way or the other. If you see and believe an article that contains a fake headline and content on the education system yet you think it’s true, this could sway your vote and have serious consequences. Being aware is extremely important in the technological age because many people make a living off of fake news. Cory Doctorow states, “ ‘fake news’  is useful in one regard: the spread of a given hoax, or unfalsifiable statement, or truth delivered under color of falsehood, or conspiracy, or objectionable idea undeniably tells you that the idea has caught the public imagination.” This is true and is the premise of the problem- fake news makes an imagination realistic, and this is what is scary. Fake news can be seen as nonfiction storytelling, yet can seem so real and true to some people to the point where they can’t distinguish fake from real. 
2. Doctorow’s definition of fake news, “ ‘fake news’ is a nearly useless term, encompassing hoaxes, conspiracy theories, unfalsifiable statements, true facts spoken by people who are seek­ing to deceive audiences about the identity of the speaker.” This is exactly how we should define is because of that aspect of “useless.” We need to execute to the mass audience of how useless fake news it, we cannot let it determine decisions or change ideas that we have. That last portion is important as well, “….spoken by people who are seek­ing to deceive audiences about the identity of the speaker.” It needs to be known that the audience is being deceived by journalists and those who make money off of fake news. Fake news should be defined not by a catch phrase, or only certain news channels. We should constantly be aware that it is published in efforts to deceive an audience which can ultimately be in any news source. 
3. I believe the main causes of fake news are the numbers and profits journalists make from it. If journalists get shares, likes, and views on a headline that’s catchy and contains fake news, they profit. In their eyes, they’re trying to keep a job, trying to keep upper management happy, all by selling fake news. In the end, fake news is not illegal and is a form of free speech. As Soll puts it, “Fake news is not a new phenomenon. It has been around since news became a concept 500 years ago with the invention of print—a lot longer, in fact, than verified, ‘objective’ news, which emerged in force a little more than a century ago.” According to Jacob Soll, fake news has been around since the beginning of time and has evolved in the way it manifests itself; it used to be through conversation, scripts, books, and now modern media. Soll claims that fake news sells and “real news” doesn’t, which is why it’s unfortunately successful. This leads to the effects of a dystopian society that is damned from the truth and blinded by delusions. As I previously mentioned, a negative effect can be how an individual casts a vote on a ballot due to their belief in fake news articles, channels, and stories. Fake news results in beliefs founded on unsound, weak arguments and “facts.” 
4. I believe it is hard to find an exact solution for fake news. Realistically, we cannot punish creators of fake news because that right to free speech and press is protected. The solution is all in the reader. We have to make it apparent that fake news is everywhere and is subtle. Therefore, the reader must be conscious is everything s/he reads, hears, and watches. The reader must second guess everything and dig in deeper research to see if an idea is consistent across all media platforms. 

Fake news has affected me to the point where I second-guess everything. I don’t fully believe anything my parents, my professors, or friends say about anything that has to deal with news and politics. When I take a step back, that’s a scary issue to think about. I constantly think, am I better than I am like this because it keeps me stubborn to my beliefs? Or is it worse that I’m like this because it stresses my mind out and loses trust in people’s opinions and credentials? I believe this is results from me being a registered independent in the state of California- I’m hesitant to believe or accept any form of news in which I always anticipate is fake. I truly believe fake news is everywhere and the reader should always be skeptical no matter how small or big the news story is. 

Project proposal 

For my RWS 411 project proposal, I would like to talk about the evolution of clickbait and its effects on humans. Some proposed questions I would like to discuss: did it start when technology/social media started? Or was it present in newspapers and journals? I’d like to talk about how clickbait aligns with fake news and how it affects a particular audience. I would analyze websites, social media platforms, mainly concerning celebrities or something of a “shock factor” to a particular audience (Murphy, 1). I would like to talk about how some people are marketed and founded on this idea of clickbait, talking about David Dobrik, a famous Youtuber who’s popular strategy is clickbait (his merch). Does Clickbait have an after effect on an audience? To what extent will people conduct research or stick with what they see? Professor Werry also brought up to mention and discuss the typology of clickbait. 

However, I cannot fit all of this into 2-5 minutes of my presentation in the class. So, I am more interested in the history of clickbait and its typology (if it has one or several). I believe that clickbait is a dangerous spin on what every journalist and student has been taught through school: “your title/ opening statement should capture the reader’s attention.” 

To discuss this topic and its history my sources (so far) will include BBC’s “Clickbait: The changing face of online journalism,” The Oxford’s English Dictionary of the word “clickbait,” Inc’s “Researchers Studied 1.67 Million Clickbait Headlines. What They Learned Will Completely Shock You,” Ashuta Bhattarai’s You won’t believe how these 9 shocking click baits work! (number 8 is a killer!), and more. It’s really interesting because there are hardly any scholarly journals or articles on clickbait, which means it’s still relatively new and/or studies are going on right now as a premise to these potential peer-reviewed journals. 

 The origins of “clickbait” reside in the late 1890s by yellow journalists who are “associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales (Frampton, 1). Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.” Of Course, their messages were communicated mainly through the newspaper, this was to drive up the cost, especially in a competition arena between newspaper businesses. Although it was not called clickbait at the time, yellow journalism is its ancestor (Frampton, 2). Now, our clickbait has evolved to be not only on a screen, but it seems normal for those living the technological age as we’re scrolling through social media and the internet. It’s not common to see an advertisement say, “You won $1,00,000,000 click to receive!” In a sense we’re desensitized to it, most of the time knowing it’s fake. However, yellow journalists received intense backlash because of the limited news sources and papers being one of the only means of communication. 

 According to Ashuta Bhattarai, the nine types of of clickbait include: shocking/amazing/unbelievable results, celebrity gossip, mysterious roles, instances of people’s stupidity on social media, a challenge to your IQ, ‘tricky’ stuff (simple tricks), the fear-inducing stuff, the list with a “jewel” in it, and sports gossip (Bhattarai,1) . However, If it were up to me, I add an extra type which is a political agenda of marketing through advertisements. An example of this would be Facebook pages that are pushing alt-right or alt-left content. In my presentation, I would show these nine through a series of PowerPoint. 

I would examine each example of clickbait and relate this through an internal conversation and line of rhetorical questioning of how these affect the audience. Does this make you want to click on it? Why do you or do you not want to click on it? If you usually click on these headlines, do you instantly regret it or find yourself enjoying it? 

In the typology of shocking/amazing/unbelievable results, I would put up one that targets weight loss since it’s one that’s most commonly seen. An example headline would be, “This unbelievable fruit can make you lose 20 lbs. In just one week!” In celebrity gossip, I would show one that is of a celebrity that almost all individuals know. It wouldn’t be a good “clickbait” of the audience that doesn’t know who the celebrity is; “Kanye West is Kylie Jenner’s baby daddy!” (Bhattarai, 1). 

In the “mysterious roles” clickbait, I would show a picture that is deemed mysterious to the audience such as “guy broke up with girlfriend after he found out what was in this picture.” Usually the pictures look normal to the human eye; for example, it would be a picture of a girl and a tree, nothing that is deemed out of the ordinary. This would make the audience want to click it due to the lack of “obvious” and amplification of mystery and curiosity (Bhattarai, 2). 

An example of instances of people’s stupidity on social media would be a tweet of someone saying, “OMG, 2020 is about to be here, I can’t believe the Earth is 2020 years old!” 

A challenge to your IQ is an interesting one because I am guilty of usually clicking on these. This can sometimes pose a threat to someone’s intelligence level, often having pictures such as “I bet you can’t guess which is the right answer! 95% of people get this wrong.” However, usually, when I click on it, I would need to sign in or create an account. 

 “Tricky’ stuff (simple tricks)” is a type of clickbait that usually leans into insecurities on an individual. An example would be “Do this trick and girls wouldn’t be able to resist you!”, “This one trick will make you 10x hotter in 1 week.”(Bhattarai, 3).  

  “The fear-inducing stuff, the list with a ‘jewel’ in it” is a type of clickbait that forces you to want to click on it because of that hidden “jewel.” For example, the title of this article: “You won’t believe how these 9 shocking click baits work! (number 8 is a killer!)” This clickbait convinces you that you cannot miss whatever #8 has to say. Another example would be “10 reasons you should break up with your boyfriend! #6 IS A KILLER!”( Bhattarai, 3). 

 “Sports gossip” clickbait consists of dramatic types of sports gossip to affect an audience, especially for sports fanatics. For example, “This is Tom Brady’s secret for winning back to back championship! You won’t believe what he’s been getting away with!” (Bhattarai, 3).  

  Overall, The evolution of clickbait is well alive in the digital-technological age. It has manifested itself in several ways which include yellow journalism that was predominant in the early 1900s. Merriam-Webster defines clickbait as “something designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink, especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest” (Merriam-Webster, 1). 21st-century humans have become desensitized to clickbait. It’s normal for at least one form of clickbait pop up on a website we’re looking at. In future research of clickbait, I would like to use more substantive articles such as scholarly journals that are peer-reviewed. I would also like to explore how this aligns with the concept of “fake news” as well as go more in-depth how people profit and make a living on clickbait; whether they’re the creators of it, they profit off the numbers of clicks, or if they explicitly call for clickbait. One last thing I would like to explore in the future is, is clickbait ethical? Does it raise any ethical concerns in the digital age? 

  

 Works Cited 

Bhattarai, Ashuta. “You Won’t Believe How These 9 Shocking Clickbaits Work! (Number 8 Is a Killer!).” Medium, The Zerone, 6 Oct. 2018, https://medium.com/zerone-magazine/you-wont-believe-how-these-9-shocking-clickbaits-work-number-8-is-a-killer-4cb2ceded8b6.

“Clickbait.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clickbait.

Frampton, Ben. “Clickbait: The Changing Face of Online Journalism.” BBC News, BBC, 14 Sept. 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-34213693.

Murphy, Bill Jr,. “Researchers Studied 1.67 Million Clickbait Headlines. What They Learned Will Completely Shock You.” Inc.com, Inc., 22 Mar. 2018, https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/these-researchers-studied-167-million-clickbait-headlines-what-they-found-will-totally-shock-you.html.

“Why Clickbait Works (And Why You Should Do More of It).” Neil Patel, 15 Feb. 2019, https://neilpatel.com/blog/why-clickbait-works/.

What I found most interesting about Cory Doctorow’s claim that fake news is much like science fiction composed of unfalsifiable statements as to his comparison. I found it interesting how he compared the concept of fake news to an Ouija Board stating, “Ouija’s planchette and invite the spirits into the room, the movement of the planchette is driven by tiny, subconscious nerve impulses that cause you and your friends to move it around the board, picking out messages.” He then transitions this and relates to fake news, “that both of these concepts would fall under the genre of science fiction, ‘fake news’ is useful in one regard: the spread of a given hoax, or unfalsifiable statement, or truth delivered under color of falsehood, or conspiracy, or objectionable idea undeniably tell you that the idea has caught the public imagination.” I find it fascinated how he took very two different things, yet made them both of the same. He claims that we should understand “fake news” just as much as we do of falsified-creative imaginations. He then uses the anti-vax movement as an example, not that he necessarily disagrees with it, but he agrees with their process, as there has been tremendous controversy within the realm of the big-pharma industry. However, he believes “ Fake news is an instrument for measuring trauma, and the epistemological incoherence that trauma creates …” I believe this is a really interesting point because he believes it’s scary to think about half-truths taking over our beliefs and lives to a point where we’re scared about the table we put on our food. He desires to fight fake news as it spreads like an epidemic and cautions to not live in a world where evidence cannot be trusted. If I had to change anything, he ends off and blames Trump for pushing the agenda of fake news, I felt like he should’ve expanded more on this because the transition is not exactly there when reading this. First, ouija board, then fake news, then anti-vax, then Trump. I understand what he’s trying to do but I wish the transition were more clear and expanded. 

Danah Boyd talks about epistemology explaining how we know what we know. She uses the agenda of conservatives who push their agendas and control the content. I found it interesting how though she doesn’t explicitly say it, but compare fake news to a virus that has spread, using technology to systematically tear at the social fabric of life. To Boyd, this is how we should understand it “it’s to create a world of content and then to push the term through to the news media at the right time so that people search for that term and receive specific content.” This text explains fake news in the essence of politicians and students wanted to learn more through sites and sources that may or may not be credible. If I had to change anything with Boyd, it would be to add a possible and explicit solution to this. Along with this, I usually am not convinced with articles that target one side in politics whether it’d be strictly conservatives or liberals, in this case, conservatives. I believe as a college student, I am forcefully fed with content that sometimes contradicts what the author is talking about, as it can apply to their articles easily. However, I am not saying she’s wrong about what she is writing about, just cherry-picking content that she wants her readers to believe as this applies to her coined phrase, “it’s to create a world of content and then to push the term through to the news media at the right time so that people search for that term and receive specific content.” Both sides of politics are relatively corrupt and this easily applies to the entire realm of politics, not just one side or the other. I think it’s interesting to use her definition of epistemology and agnotology and apply to politics in a larger sense. 

Marcieca’s text relates to Robert-Millers because of the concept of demagoguery that we’ve been discussing in class. To refer back to Robert Miller, “Demagoguery is polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s), largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called “an escape from freedom.” Marcieca’s concept of “weaponized communication” relates to Robert-Miller’s article, this is because it is the negative aspect is what she admits to as opposed to the “heroic demagogue” which brings in a little light to this negative linguistic term. She extends Robert-Miller’s claim by emphasizing the level of accountability. Though Robert-Miller briefly mentions it, Mercieca argues there is a “single criterion by which dangerous demagogues can be identified: whether or not they allow themselves to be held accountable for their words and actions.” This also extends Robert-Miller’s claim by declaring that weaponized communication is constantly changing: “conspiracy theory, fake news, and disinformation.” I believe this is an interesting point because we have to constantly be attentive to the hard-to-keep-up nature of internet trends and norms. Though it might seem harmless, this concept can misinform us and guide us in a way the internet wants us to go.

The websites Huzlers is a “fake news site” that is the format of a blog, much like BuzzFeed, that gets way too many shares than it should. Their most popular stories include Jake from State Farm was murdered for cheating, Employee fired for putting mixtape in Happy Meals, FDA finds thousands of Coors Light Beers Laced With Cocaine Nationwide, etc. Almost all of these stories have been debunked, but they have been shared thousands, some even millions of times on social media. Looking through the lens of Robert-Miller, this website is seen as “Heavy reliance on fallacious arguments, especially false dilemma, scare tactics, red herring, and ad personum.” They most likely use their fallacious arguments for the clicks and shares, which many will lead to their website and see ads, that they will get money for. Using such crazy and bizarre stories will bring out a shock factor within the internet audience that will make them go to this site. This relates to Marcieca’s text due to her notion of “fake news,” which this website is plenty of. “Dangerous demagogues attempt to distort reality by spreading propaganda, conspiracy theory, fake news, and disinformation. Dangerous demagogues attempt to distort the meaning by taking words out of context, intentionally ignoring contradictory information, and intentionally subverting the dominant meanings of keywords or using dog whistles to appeal to their partisans.” This website heavily distorts reality especially if the shock factor of it makes it “real to you” unless you’re technologically attentive and decide to do some research. Websites like this are a dangerous demagogue that is shared more times than it should be to the internet public.