Connect with us

Business News

Dang kids can’t tell real news from fake “news” ads

(MARKETING NEWS) This Stanford study tested schoolkids’ ability to assess the value of digital media and their take on fake news ads.

Published

on

fake news ads

Just sayin’

I am proud to announce, far too late for it to do any good, that I have discovered the one thing in the petty, grueling, factionalized 2016 presidential election – other than the fact that the 2016 presidential election was remarkably petty, grueling and factionalized – that the entire American electorate can agree on.

Media sucks.

bar

Testing the kids

I mean, I work in the media, but sticks and stones. Neither side in this election so much as spoke the phrase “mainstream media” without an invisible “…which sucks” appended. But good news, everyone! Stanford has figured out the problem: it’s people.

Wait, no. I’m sorry. That’s Soylent Green. Soylent Green is people.

The Stanford study tested schoolkids’ ability to assess the value of digital media. In fact, it tested middle school, high school and college students, but let’s talk middle school. The study concluded that middle schoolers – a demographic not on the whole notable for buying power or political influence – rely on obvious signifiers as to whether something is an advertisement or an article, such as visible dollar amounts or the “big blue X” that nice websites provide for unwelcome banners. OK?

Where data gets a bit deeper

But then things get interesting. In the executive summary of the study, available as a free PDF, Stanford draws that conclusion from an experiment in which students – again, we’re talking middle school here – are shown a fake but convincing frontispiece of the online news magazine Slate.com. One’s a banner ad, which more than 75% of subjects correctly identified. Ten-year-olds got the ad. Done, right?

Apparently not.

There were two more pieces to look at: a “sponsored content” native advertisement and a non-sponsored article advocating consumers buy California almonds. Stanford was troubled by how many students failed to identify “sponsored content” as an advertisement, and the other as an article.

I’m not. Here’s why, straight from the students themselves.

Regarding the actual article: “It is an advertisement because they are trying to persuade people that almonds aren’t bad and that you should buy them.” Well… yes. That’s what it’s doing, and that’s what an advertisement does.

Discussing the sponsored post: “There is nothing to suggest that something is sold. No money, deals, etc. It sounds like an article.” Well… no. There isn’t. None of those things appear in the “sponsored content” presented.

They’re not wrong

Recall that both those arguments are being made by people under 14. And as the linked summary shows, the title and tagline of the article some students “inaccurately” identified as an advertisement? “Should California Stop Growing Almonds? The nut has been vilified for drinking up the state’s water supply. It doesn’t deserve such a bad rap.” Bolding in the original emphasizes the article’s perceived bias.

These students aren’t reading the material wrong; they’re reading it as written. They’re deciding whether to treat something as an article – important information for a reader to assess for themselves – or as an advertisement – an argument meant to elicit a particular act from the reader – based on the content, not the format. Not what it looks like, but what it says. Because in post-smartphone digital media, whether it’s Slate or The American Genius, pretty much everything looks like an ad.

Nice work, kids.

Screenshot courtesy of Ev Williams.

#FakeNews

Matt Salter is a writer and former fundraising and communications officer for nonprofit organizations, including Volunteers of America and PICO National Network. He’s excited to put his knowledge of fundraising, marketing, and all things digital to work for your reading enjoyment. When not writing about himself in the third person, Matt enjoys horror movies and tabletop gaming, and can usually be found somewhere in the DFW Metroplex with WiFi and a good all-day breakfast.

Business News

Class action lawsuit claims Tesla plant is a hotbed of racism

(BUSINESS NEWS) Tesla is being hit with another lawsuit, this time alleging discrimination at one of their plants. No wonder Musk wants to get to Mars…

Published

on

tesla autopilot

Groundbreaking automaker Tesla may be the future of automotive transportation, but when it comes to discrimination, some say the company seems to be living in the past.

This week, the company received notice that they would be brought to court by a group of black workers filing a class action lawsuit. The suit states that the Tesla’s Fremont, California production plant is a “hotbed of racist behavior.”

The suit was filed by former employee Marcus Vaughn in the California state court in Oakland and is the third lawsuit filed this year by black workers and former workers from Tesla.

Vaughn, who began working in the factory in April, says that his supervisors regularly referred to him using racial slurs. When he wrote a complaint to the human resources department, they were unresponsive. Then in October, Vaughn was fired for “not having a positive attitude.”

Tesla is denying the claims, saying that they did investigate the incidents, and fired three workers as a result. The company went so far as to post a statement called “Hotbed of Misinformation” on its website on Wednesday, saying that the company is “absolutely against any form of discrimination, harassment, or unfair treatment of any kind.”

In May, Musk sent an email to all employees telling them that should never “allow someone to feel excluded, uncomfortable or unfairly treated.” However, he also said that workers should “be thick-skinned.”

Vaughn’s lawyer, Lawrence Organ, who also sued Tesla on behalf of three black Tesla workers last month, responded that “The law doesn’t require you to have a thick skin. When you have a diverse workforce, you need to take steps to make sure everyone feels welcome in that workforce.”

Tesla is also facing lawsuits claiming that the company discriminates against gay and older workers, and last month, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union filed a complaint to the federal labor board, saying that Tesla had fired workers for supporting unionization.

Continue Reading

Business News

Harvard digs into how several women broke the glass ceiling

(BUSINESS NEWS) At an increasing pace, the glass ceiling is being shattered, but what did it ACTUALLY take for individual women to do just that?

Published

on

glass ceiling broken

More than ever, women are breaking the glass ceiling in businesses. However, progress is still very slow, with the number of women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies only increasing little by little each year.

The Rockefeller Foundations’ 100×25 initiative hopes to have 100 female CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies by 2025. To this end, they’ve given a grant to Korn Ferry, a recruiting firm, to find “research-based tools and strategies” for launching more women into executive positions.

Korn Ferry teamed up with Harvard Business Review researchers to interview and assess 57 female CEOs to find out the plot points and personality traits led to their business success. From these observations, they’ve made some crucial recommendations for how companies can get more women into top positions. Here’s what they discovered.

First of all, the study found that women had to work harder and longer to get to the top than men. They held more positions, worked for more companies, and were an average of four years older than their male counterparts.

Secondly, the study also found that female CEOs were motivated by different factors than male CEOs. They were less interested in status and rewards than they were in collaboration and in participating in something that would contribute positively to company culture or to the community as a whole.

The study also identified four common characteristics of female CEOs: courage, risk-taking, resilience, and managing ambiguity. Breaking the glass ceiling in and of itself required women to face fears, take on challenges, and stay in the fight even when discouraged.

Despite these powerful personality traits, female CEOs were found to be more humble than male CEOs. They spent less time promoting themselves and were more likely to be thankful for their coworkers and supporters, and to give credit to others for their successes or their company’s successes. Female CEOs saw themselves as a part of a team and understood that no single person was responsible for defining the company or making it successful.

The study discovered that very few female CEOs had envisioned themselves making it that far. Only five grew up dreaming of being a CEO, and two-thirds said that they didn’t even think about being a CEO until a mentor or boss encouraged them.

Lastly, the study found that female CEOs had strong backgrounds in STEM, as well as business, finance, and economics. None of the CEOs started their careers in human resources, a department that is often heavily staffed by women.

From these findings, the researchers made several suggestions to strengthen the “pipeline” of women into top positions. This included identifying women with potential earlier and giving them more opportunities and guidance, including mentors and sponsors. It also suggested describing leadership roles in terms that resonate with women by showing how the role will give them a chance to add value to the business and do something positive in the world.

Finally, the researchers warned to beware of the “glass cliff,” wherein women are only given leadership opportunities when the company is in crisis or when there is a high chance of failure. Instead, companies are encouraged to give women a chance when the brand is doing well, or if you must put them in a high-risk position, help them bounce back so that it doesn’t ruin their career.

Read more on the study at Harvard Business Review.

Continue Reading

Business News

How to revamp an overly long job hunt

(BUSINESS) If you’ve been on the job hunt for weeks or months, we know that can be extremely frustrating – the best way out of the rut is to revamp your efforts.

Published

on

google tracking career-listing-jargon-man-desk job hunt

The job hunt can be an extensive and exhausting process. However, to make it suck a little less, try and change your thinking to make it more of a learning and growth experience, rather than an end-all-be-all hunt.

As you know, the basics of the job search can be broken down into: resume, cover letter, skills, and networking. Adjusting your view on each of these aspects can change the course of your search.

Your resume and cover letter will most likely be the first impression an employer receives from you. Make it stand out. That’s a vague statement, yes. But, putting in just a little bit more effort with your cover letter and resume will make a huge difference.

Tailor each resume and cover letter to fit the exact position you’re applying for. Read the position description in depth, research the company history and culture, and review the company’s social media.

All of this digging can be used as fodder for the content of your cover letter. It can also help your resume as you can make an appropriate list of skills. Also, if the company’s website shows a value on education and volunteering, you can know to expand on those sections within your resume.

Speaking of volunteering, use the free time you have during your job search to volunteer. Not only is it beneficial for those you’re helping, but it will also give you purpose and expand on your skill set – therefore, helping your resume in the process.

With this in mind, you can also fill your free time by taking an online class to enhance your skill set. This also has the potential of setting you apart from the competition.

Lastly, use your free time for networking. Do some research via LinkedIn and find someone who has a position similar to what you’re looking for and ask them for some advice.

While you’re at it, seek out people in your circle and ask them about their career paths. You’ll come to see that the “path” is not always a straight line, and many people have been in your shoes.

Which brings us to the defeating part of job hunting – the word “no”. The hardest part to deal with is repeated rejection.

When you’re searching high and low for the perfect fit, you begin thinking that it must come so easily to everyone else and it must be something you’re doing wrong. Unless you’re an ex-con who consistently no shows to work, this probably isn’t the case.

This may be difficult to keep in mind, but it’s important to remember that the rejection may not be at all personal. There may have been some changes within the company where they decided to go another way for whatever reason, having nothing to do with you.

If you’d really like to know, you could always try to follow up with the interviewer and ask what you can learn from the experience. Learning is one of the most valuable parts of job searching, as it can lead to growth.

Expand your search options and step outside of your comfort zone. Just because you had the position of accountant at your last job, does not mean that is the road you must follow. Take this time to think about your strengths and interests and how you would like to infuse those with your 9-to-5.

Throughout this process, you may have the desire (more than once) to give up. Try switching up rather than giving up – start from the beginning and re-groom your resume (consider hiring a resume writing service) and re-apply to roles at companies you never heard back from.

Change is scary – I will never argue that. But one last ditch option is to broaden your horizons and consider changing your career path can be the greatest choice you’ve ever made.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

The
American Genius
News neatly in your inbox

Join thousands of AG fans and SUBSCRIBE to get business and tech news updates, breaking stories, and MORE!

Emerging Stories