How the working poor got worked over by the age of ‘Fake News’.

Today we’re going to use the funny kind of “Fake News” to explain why it’s so damn hard to stay informed as a citizen. And now, I take you to a ginger’s sad college room of the early aughts.

In my first year of clown college, I had a Mad Magazine fold out on the back of my bedroom door that satirized The Onion. Why no, I wasn’t popular. Thank you for asking. But my favourite joke was this meta headline.

If you work in satirical news, you know the headline is basically everything. In fact the pitch process for satirical news is actually just a pitch of the headline — if the headline works, you get to write the article. The reason for this? Nobody reads the article — think about the last time you fully read an Onion/Beaverton/Reductress article. (You really should with the Reductress though — the articles are hilarious). But I digress. The problem is that the unfortunate headline to article consumption ratio is getting dangerously close to fake news, in news of the non-fake variety.

In a previous post, I wrote about the problems of simplifying complex cases like Omar Khadr. And to fully understand where I’m going with this post— let’s do a quick recap of that piece.

Step One: Public opinion firm releases data with the click-iest finding out front.

Step Two: Media Run to Scream Said Click-y Fact From Mountaintops

Step Three: Canadians end up not fully grasping what the findings truly were. Oh, look beyond the catchy finding — the ACTUAL more complex finding. We’re not sure.

Step Four: After propaganda outlets use said polling — misinformed opinions are on the rise.

Much like the Onion reader of my college days gone by, most citizens aren’t spending hours reading past the headlines being served to them. Which means, our Facebook feed has turned satirical news habits into real news habits — and outlets realize this.

The low click through rate on social media “may just shock you”. Despite shares being high — the actual times folks click on an article — and then stay on the page to read it, isn’t encouraging if you own or work for a news outlet. This problem is what created the clickbait disconnect between the story you wanted to read from the title and the one that loaded. We didn’t call it “tricking you” we came up with “closing the curiosity gap”.

It’s also the reason you’re being drowned in obnoxious video content — the current belief has been the metrics on video make it easier to track and place an effective ad. Plus, it has the added advantage of keeping you on the social platform — which of course makes them more money. Sadly, it’s also the reason companies like Facebook lied about what the definition of a “view” was to the publishers — sweetening the ‘success’ rate. Okay, you’re falling asleep on me. The point is, the marketing metrics of journalism are playing into the wider spectrum of what constitutes “the fake news” problem.

Let’s start with what is incorrectly labelled “clickbait” — and that is merely curated content that appeals to niche audiences. In digital journalism, the headline matches the emotion the outlet assumes you’ll connect with.

Let’s take Trump’s recent statements over being a “Stable Genius”. Here’s two headlines, the first from left leaning feminist site Bustle.

And now the garbage fire of the prejudice that is Breitbart.

Yeah, I’m not linking to this.

Bustle feminists know you wish to “rip Trump apart” with the ol laugh/cry — and the Breitbart bigots know you like to mock people with high emotional intelligence and will pile on those Hollywood elite who are “triggered”. This is the digital journalism economy we live in.

Post Trump election — the avid news reader now has a basic idea where the media brands fall on the political spectrum. The majority of folks rarely engage with them.

This is where we see the often talked about “filter bubble” issue arise. Like in the cable days of Fox vs. MSNBC or CBC vs Sun News — many folks live in their own world of truthiness and they’re okay with that. The social media economy can feed the feels, better than tv ever dreamed of.

But while the alt-right vs. “sjw” meme wars get the majority of fake news focus — it’s within the nuanced issues where “fake news” can really be a problem. Oversimplification has become the gateway drug to digital radicalization.

Canada’s Minimum Wage Debate

In my province of Ontario this week, we saw our minimum wage rise to $14.00 from $11.60.

But that’s not the only thing that happened. The following changes also came into effect in Ontario but didn’t get the same attention. And it’s these added rights — which really bother the business lobby. But they know it’s easier to say your Timbits will cost more.

10 days of personal emergency leave for all workers, 2 of those days will be paid, and a doctor’s note is not required. 3 weeks paid vacation after 5 years of working at the same company. Domestic or sexual violence leave of up to 10 individual days and up to 15 weeks if the worker or the worker’s child must deal with domestic or sexual violence. The first 5 days of leave each year will be paid. Temporary help agencies will have to give workers one week’s written notice or pay in lieu of notice if a longer term assignment ends early. Forming a union will be easier for homecare workers, temporary agency workers, and building service workers. An employer must recognize a union if the majority of employees signs union cards. Other improvements makes it easier to form a union in other sectors. Misclassification of employees as “independent contractors” is against the law. Employers will be responsible for proving that an individual is not an employee.

Twenty-five per cent of Ontario employees — 1.46 million people — earned less than $15 an hour last year. And to put that $14.00 in perspective, according to the progressive lobby group the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives - a living wage in Toronto necessitates you make $18 an hour. Where I grew up, in Simcoe County you would need $17.74 an hour for a living wage. Whether you agree with those figures or not — the compromise in Ontario of 14 dollars in 2018 followed by $15.00 by 2019 is not socialists run amok. It came after a long and hard fought battle from citizen groups who lobbied for better conditions in the Ontario economy. Like in many places across America, these issues are taking hold after years of stagnating wages. In Alberta, workers will see their minimum wage go up to $15.00 this October.

But don’t worry American friends, despite what you’ve read about ‘Prime Minister Hey Girl’ and our SJW ways — our headlines weren’t exactly humming socialist ditties by Woody Guthrie.

That’s right Virginia, there isn’t a Santa Claus. You guessed it, it’s doom and gloom and jobs are falling off cliffs on our front pages.

It’s true that our economic coverage lacks a working class perspective in Canada. This week gave you a lot of silly takes to back that theory up. If you’re interested in that — The Tyee has you covered. But I want to leave the political bias out of this piece now. No, actually, I want to do it after this great biased cartoon.

Despite being a sarcastic progressive — this piece has nothing to do with my political feels. What I want to talk about is how this story is actually “Fake News”. Strap in kids, we’re going to dissect a headline. First up the old school bird cage lining.

If you walk by this at your grocery store — you notice the 60,000 jobs line — if you look a little closer the red font gives us some vague context. But here’s where things get fun. This headline is one big fake news mess.

First, we need to understand the full spectrum of what “Fake News” really is. So, I’m going to bust out a chart that helps in broadening your definition of ‘fake news’ beyond “Things Trump Says”.

These types of categories are important when looking at news — and very few citizens have brushed up on them — because they have actual lives. But to dive a little deeper, this second chart helps us out. We’re going to be looking at “Poor Journalism”.

So, why is this story “poor journalism”? Well, looking at our chart — we’ll look at “false connection”, “false context” and “misleading information”. In this case it’s a mix of genuine content being shared with false contextual information and misleading use of information to frame an issue.

Like in the Khadr case, this framing didn’t materialize out of thin air — nor is it a true government figure. But it is great for getting a rise out of folks. Yet, hardly anything in this headline is a fact.

The Bank of Canada not only sounds super official — it is, kids. Here are some key responsibilities of the Bank of Canada that you just looked up on wikipedia — because most Canadians couldn’t tell you what the Bank of Canada actually does.

So, if the Bank of Canada says we’re about to lose 60,000 jobs. People have a right to somewhat panic. Let’s use the CBC story first.

And this is where you HAVE TO click the link. Because in the second paragraph this clarification appears.

Okay class, raise your hand if you know the difference between official views of the Bank of Canada and a research note from the Bank of Canada’s department of wonks. I’ll wait…

Yeah, nobody does. And here’s where misinformation becomes a nesting doll. To their credit — CBC at least links to the original research note (many didn’t even mention this detail, let alone link to it). And if you click that — you’ll come across this fine print on the front page of the research note.

For those who aren’t into squinting while reading.

Bank of Canada staff analytical notes are short articles that focus on topical issues relevant to the current economic and financial context, produced independently from the Bank’s Governing Council. This work may support or challenge prevailing policy orthodoxy. Therefore, the views expressed in this note are solely those of the authors and may differ from official Bank of Canada views. No responsibility for them should be attributed to the Bank.

We’re not off the front page of this research note yet and our news headlines already need an asterisk.

To recap, Bank of Canada employees from various departments got together and wrote a research note — that note does not represent the Bank of Canada — just those who authored it… who work for the Bank of Canada. Well, that’s fun. That isn’t to say their information is hogwash— it’s merely to say this is where trying to create big, bold, headlines about complex issues, from the academic exercises of economic wonks — becomes kind of a nightmare.

Where the CBC writes “could cost”, the headline quickly morphs into “job losses”. And guess what? That was good for 13k shares on Facebook where our Onion style of article reading takes hold.

When scrolling across 60,000 job losses — one may begin to hyperventilate while picturing Jimmy’s mom vanishing into the Beer Store for the weekend. But the 60,000 figure is merely a prediction of a slow down in economic growth. Meaning according to our wonks — their math projects 60,000 jobs may not BE CREATED. The figure is not 60,000 folks out on the bread line singing Springsteen. And the figure isn’t a hard 60,000 either — it’s a predication within an a model. More on that in a second.

The blurring of all of these issues gets complicated especially when most of us aren’t the least bit savvy in the field of economics. When we hear 60,000 jobs lost that doesn’t conjure up images of an academic algorithm — it makes us anxious or angry.

Simple mistakes were made by the average reader — because the story was unclear. For example, the 60,000 figure is a nation wide figure not an Ontario one. Less savvy readers on Facebook naturally drew a straight line on a headline like that straight to Ontario politics because of Ontario’s minimum wage increasing the same week as this news story appearing.

Also, even if the prediction of the BoC authors turns out to be 100% accurate it would represent just 0.3 per cent of total employment in all of Canada. They got that number by basing their figures on November 2017's employment levels (the last month data was available to them). To put the 60,000 projected slow down by 2019 in perspective — in December alone — 79,000 jobs were gained across Canada. 26,000 of those coming from just Alberta.

And finally — remember the prediction is by the end of 2019. Some outlets like the CBC in the rush to pump out the story, said 60,000 jobs would be “lost” this year — further adding to the panic.

CBC Correction

If tomorrow we made unpaid internships illegal, headlines in Canada would read “60,000 bosses to go without Coffee says Bank of Canada”.

But besides the fact the Bank of Canada didn’t officially say this as an organization and the 60,000 number is highly debatable— it’s also not the sole focus of the report. In fact in the note, it’s stated after a positive statement.

While the net impact on labour income would be positive, employment would fall by 60,000 a number that lies in the lower part of a range obtained from an accounting exercise (30,000 to 140,000).

And now you’ve noticed the 30,000 to 140,000 range. Do you understand those numbers? Probably not and that’s another problem with trying to simplify headlines based on economic exercises. The average reader is not equipped to process them. Economic projections depend on a lot of variables that aren’t agreed upon. Here’s the ensuing debate by that previously mentioned progressive wonk in the Tyee for example.

First, the note uses a structural general equilibrium model, a class of models that has come under increased scrutiny since the financial crisis because of their over-reliance on rather unrealistic assumptions and the sensitivity of their conclusions to changes in assumptions. For example, new research from Marshall Steinbaum at the Roosevelt Institute suggests labour markets may have a higher degree of what economists call monopsony than previously thought, something that runs counter to standard assumptions about how job markets work. — Michal Rozworski

My study shows that most Canadians clicked over to kittens playing with gorillas after “general equilibrium model”. As Milton Friedman once said, ‘Love means never having to say monopsony.’ Okay, he didn’t say that.

Headlines steered away from “NET IMPACT ON LABOUR INCOME WILL BE POSITIVE” or the more accurate “Nothing much will change” to the fear mongering and misleading job loss framing — because that’s more effective in garnering an emotional response which gets you to 13k Facebook shares. The responsible outlets then tried to give the proper context within the article — hoping you clicked.

In fact some of these articles themselves include paragraphs that flat out contradict the doom and gloom headline. This is half way through the Toronto Star story with the same 60,000 job loss angle.

To tell you headlines are sensationalized isn’t exactly a headline either. But if we’re living in an era where we’re concerned about the results of “Fake News” — we should be steering away from confusing the public — not steering into it. And these types of stories are a simple fix. Don’t over-simplify a headline, when it will result in more confusion about the issue.

Of course the problem with that naivete is what the headline should’ve said. In an interview with Vice this week, Scotiabank’s Deputy Chief Economist fixed these headlines. Well, kinda.

“The headline of that report should have said: ‘macroeconomic effect of minimum wage hike likely to be within margin of error’. There’s going to be a negligible effect on the macroeconomy, and a very positive effect on low wage earners.” — Brett House, Deputy Chief Economist at Scotiabank

And now you understand how we end up at “job losses”. Nobody is clicking on anything that leads with “macroeconomic effect…”.

After three years of doing the Canada beat for The Young Turks Network on YouTube — I’ll let ya in on something— titles matter. And far too many people shape their overall feelings on issues from the sharing of said headlines. The 60,000 jobs angle was even good for 8500 shares from the financial nerds following the Financial Post.

We can’t pretend that headlines exist in a pre-social media context and that the buck stops at the reader who is responsible to be informed. And we can’t do that, because we live in a social media era where folks are being incubated in propaganda alongside photos of their loved ones. Within minutes of posting, the CBC’s headline became political propaganda.

Ontario Proud boasts 300,000 Facebook likes and is part of a movement fueled by the anger of an alt-right style Conservative digital audience and partly by confused Canadians who like patriotic cold shaming memes. The page is part “Meanwhile in Canada” and part “Rebel Media” and that’s why it’s effective propaganda. Ontario Proud is part of an online network of other “Proud” groups in Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. Each having connections to former folks from Sun News or the Conservative party. Before the end of the news day, the group had produced a FB ‘explainer’ style propaganda video with the incorrect CBC info of “60,000 jobs this year”. But in their hands it was skewed to “60,000 people will lose their job this year”. They also misled folks into thinking the bank of Canada is speaking about Ontario specifically. That video right now sits close to 150k views with around 2000 shares.

It’s not true —so cheer up stock footage lady!

Ontario Proud falls into the traditional propaganda on the misinformation chart from the beginning of our journey. When our fourth estate causes confusion rather than context, it gives sites like Ontario Proud a false sense of validity on our timelines and more importantly — the ability to own the narrative for their own purposes. That in turn fuels the fringes of the left to entrench themselves in a belief “the media” is out to get the 99% by making such blatant contextual gaffes.

In 2017, the old headline model needs an update. Because even when a news outlet tries to throw some context within their post — the headline still matters most. Why? Take a look.

What makes Facebook the most valuable social platform, is the fact your irl social life lives there. With one quick unclicking of the “include original post” box — I now have a link to give my friends and family, complete with my own biased context and free of journalism.

In the digital age headlines matter more than ever, because within the social culture share — that’s the main message we consume. And don’t take it from me, take it from the guy who used to do digital for Sun News and now runs social for two of the “Proud” FB pages.

“If you see your uncle, your cousin or your neighbour sharing a political message, you’re way more likely to engage with it than a television commercial, it’s much less passive.” — Jeff Baginall (Creator of Ontario Proud) to CBC News

If we’re serious about tackling misinformation, we need to understand our own roles within “Fake News” and be serious about informing ourselves and our neighbour. But we’ll need that road to have as few roadblocks as possible. And while we need to see social platforms step up and do more — there’s nothing Facebook or Twitter could’ve done this week to stop the context-free Bank of Canada* panic button headlines from reputable sources.

I know that serious people cringe when folks write think pieces on “Comedy is the new journalism” but it’s important to think about why one could even write such a thing without everyone laughing you out of the room. So before we end today’s journey — I want to explain to you, how I believe this happened.

A comedians job is to make you laugh — if they make you laugh, they make money. That’s the business model. A journalist’s job is to inform — but if they inform you, they may not make money. This is the broken job description for journalists everywhere. When John Oliver’s staff writes a long form piece — they have to make you understand the issue — otherwise their jokes will fall flat. And that joke working is how they get paid. Comedy writers safeguard the laugh by assuming an audience knows nothing — and we take on the role of an issues tour guide. Satirists fell ass backwards into being solid informers just for the lulz of it all. Journalists on the other hand are incubated around very serious and thoughtful people and tend to overestimate the intelligence of their audience. A satirist wouldn’t be careless with a phrase like “jobs lost” because they know the audience has a different image in their head than the one they need them to have — which hurts the end of goal of ‘lol’.

This week journalism in Canada assumed you had the tools to make the finer economic distinctions yourself — but also that simplification or oversight actually helped articles to be shared. The assumption of knowledge though flattering for the average Canadian has proven costly for the greater good of an informed society. Whether it’s good for the bottom line of journalism, can be debated. I obviously side with the folks currently screaming “NO”.

I’m not suggesting it’s easy to solve this issue within an industry hurting so badly right now for eyeballs and cash. But the simple fact remains, if an outlet chooses clicks before context — expect the worst to happen within society. It almost always does.