based on the debate format, write the crossfires and the rebuttal for the Con team

Power of the Press Debate Format


Format

The debate structure is based roughly on the Public Forum Debate format. Time allotments are as follows:
 

Pro Team first argument        4 min.   (Pro team speaker #1)

Con Team first argument       4 min.   (Con team speaker #1)

Crossfire [1]                        4 min.   (Pro and Con team's #1 speakers)
 

Pro Team second argument   4 min.   (Pro team speaker #2)

Con Team second argument  4 min.   (Con team speaker #2)

Crossfire                                 4 min.   (Pro and Con team's #2 speakers)
 

Team consultation                  2 min.
 

Pro Team rebuttal[2]         4 min.   (Pro team speaker #3)

Con Team rebuttal                 4 min.   (Con team speaker #3)
 

All-member crossfire[3]    5 min.    (All team members)
 

Team consultation                  2 min.
 

Pro team summing-up           2 min.    (Speaker of Pro team's choice)

Con team summing-up          2 min.    (Speaker of Con team's choice)
 
[1] Crossfire is time allotted for the speakers to ask one another questions in turn.

[2] Rebuttals are an opportunity for the speakers for that round to refute the other side's arguments.

[3] Teams take turns asking questions of their opponents. No set speakers.


Pro first argued (Ariel)
Good afternoon everyone, today our debate topic is Journalism has primary responsibility for combating misinformation. The pro team rises in strong support to the statement. In an era where misinformation can spread faster than the truth, the role of journalism as the guardian of factual integrity has never been more critical. I am going to explain the statement and straight to our arguments.
Let's first examine what we mean by Primary responsibility: This refers to the main duty or obligation to act in a specific area. In the context of the debate, it refers to the central role that journalism should play in combating misinformation. (For Journalism: This refers to the profession or practice of producing and disseminating news and information to the public. Journalists are expected to adhere to ethical standards and principles, including a commitment to accuracy, impartiality, and accountability. And lastly, Misinformation: This refers to false or inaccurate information that is circulated deliberately or unintentionally, often with the intention of deceiving or misleading the public). We the pro team strongly support Journalism as primary or the central responsibility for combating misinformation.
Now for my arguments. My argument hinges on two pivotal points: the unique duty of journalists as society's "watchdogs" and the profound trust the audience places in journalists, necessitating that information must be true from the outset.
Firstly, the role of journalists as "watchdogs" is not just a job description; it is a sacred duty to the public they serve. This duty entails vigilantly monitoring, investigating, and reporting on matters of public interest, ensuring that power—in all its forms—is held accountable. In the context of misinformation, this watchdog role expands to include the identification, debunking, and correction of false information that could mislead the public or distort the democratic process. If journalists do not stand at the front lines in the battle against misinformation, who will? Actually one poll that has been cited indicates that a sizable segment of the public believes that the media with 53% should be in charge of curbing the spread of false information rather than the government or tech companies. The responsibility falls squarely on their shoulders, not just to report the news, but to safeguard the truth itself.
Furthermore, the trust that the audience places in journalists forms the bedrock of their effectiveness and legitimacy. This trust is predicated on the expectation that the information provided by journalists is accurate, unbiased, and reliable. In the digital age, where information is abundant and sources are manifold, the audience's trust in journalists signifies a beacon of truth amidst a sea of misinformation. When journalists commit to combating misinformation, they are not merely performing a task; they are upholding a trust that is essential for the informed functioning of society. This trust necessitates that information must be true at the first place, leaving no room for complacency in the face of misinformation.
In conclusion, The dual responsibilities of being society's watchdog and maintaining the audience's trust converge on this critical point: journalism has the primary responsibility for combating misinformation.



CON FIRST ARGUMENT (GIULIA) - 4 minutes 

Journalism is vital for keeping the public informed. However, it should not be the primary defense against misinformation. We believe that the main responsibility of journalism is rather to provide accurate information to the public. The responsibility for combating misinformation is a complex task and should be a joint effort among various stakeholders.

1. Defining Journalism and Its Role
In our context, journalism is more than just a means of transmitting information: it is a pivotal tool for societal discussion and accountability.. Journalism's primary role is to serve the public good, a responsibility that goes beyond simply sharing facts, for it also involves promoting critical thinking and democratic involvement in society. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current events and issues, fostering an informed audience, and focusing on giving people the best tools to comprehend what’s happening in the world around us.
However, attributing the sole burden for fighting the spread of misinformation to journalism overlooks the multifaceted nature of the problem and its widespread impact.

2. The Dynamics of Fast-Paced Digital Society
In our fast-paced digital society, there is a tremendous expectation for journalists to provide immediate, in-depth, and accurate coverage. This urgency often compromises the depth and accuracy of reporting, leading to errors and misinformation (Reuters Institute, 2022).  
In recent times, public trust in journalism has significantly eroded, making it increasingly difficult for reporters to be seen as the sole gatekeepers of truth. A study by PEN America found that 81% of reporters view misinformation as a very serious problem that impacts their work, leading to public hostility and a loss of audience trust (PEN America, 2020). This erosion of trust derives from various factors, including perceived biases, sensationalism, and the pressures of the 24-hour news cycle. 
Additionally, the expectation for journalists to provide not only factual reporting but also high-value opinions can sometimes lead to the unintended dissemination of misinformation, especially when those opinions are based on incomplete or incorrect information.
The demand for “breaking news” and high-value opinions can therefore distort the line between news and opinion, pushing journalists to prioritize speed over accuracy. This blurring of lines erodes public trust and makes it increasingly difficult for audiences to discern credible information from falsehoods. As such, relying solely on journalists to combat misinformation is not only unrealistic but also potentially counterproductive in the current media landscape.

3. The Limits of Fact-Checking During Crises
Fact-checking is a crucial tool for combating misinformation, yet it is fraught with challenges, especially during crises. The dynamic and evolving nature of emergencies, such as pandemics or wars, means that new information emerges rapidly, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. For example, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about virus transmission and prevention spread faster than health organizations could correct it (NCBI, 2021). Similarly, during the ongoing conflicts in Israel and Gaza and the war in Ukraine, journalists struggle to report accurately amidst propaganda and the mist of war. Both Russian and Ukrainian sources have been accused of spreading misinformation to sway public opinion and gain strategic advantages (Reuters, 2022). These examples underscore that while fact-checking is essential, the fast-paced and high-stakes nature of crises can limit its effectiveness, making it unrealistic to expect journalists to single-handedly combat misinformation during such times.





(ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS - maybe to add in the rebuttal)
5. Erosion of Trust and the Need for Media Literacy
Trust in traditional media is at an all-time low. A study by the Reuters Institute reveals that a significant portion of the public no longer trusts mainstream media to provide accurate news (Reuters Institute, 2022). This erosion of trust is exacerbated by the public’s demand for high-value opinions, which are often based on incomplete or misleading information. The public’s expectation that journalists should only present facts, without acknowledging the complexity and subjectivity involved in many stories, undermines the journalistic endeavor.

To effectively combat misinformation, it is essential to empower the public with media literacy skills. UNESCO advocates for educational programs that teach people to evaluate information critically, understand media biases, and recognize falsehoods (UNESCO, 2018). This approach ensures that individuals are not merely passive consumers of news but active participants in the information ecosystem, capable of discerning fact from fiction. As such, the responsibility to fight misinformation is not solely that of journalists but also educational institutions, governments, and the public at large.
Media literacy teaches people to critically analyze the news they consume, recognize biases, and verify information from multiple sources. By equipping the public with these skills, society can create a more informed and discerning populace that is better prepared to navigate the complexities of the information landscape and reduce the spread of misinformation.

Collective Responsibility:
According to a poll by NPR, the public is divided on who should be responsible for combating misinformation: 39% point to the media, 18% to technology companies, 15% to the government, and only 12% to the public (Poynter, 2020). This division underscores the need for a collective approach. Technology companies must develop better algorithms to detect and prevent the spread of false information, governments should implement regulations fostering media literacy programs in schools, and the public must become more critical consumers of information.

In conclusion, while journalism remains indispensable for our democracy, attributing it with the sole responsibility of informing the public oversimplifies the challenges posed by misinformation in our digital age. Addressing these challenges demands a collective effort from media platforms, regulatory bodies, and the public itself. By empowering individuals with the tools to critically analyze information, we can foster a more resilient information ecosystem where truth prevails over falsehoods.


→ Google BERT model for fact-checking: https://searchengineland.com/recent-changes-to-improve-relevance-and-reliability-of-google-search-340465




PRO SECOND ARGUMENT (BRYAN)
	Rebuttal
The point you brought up is important to note. Often, people who share things online do not do sufficient, if any, fact-checking themselves. Though I will begin with the caveat that the survey was conducted solely in the USA, almost 40% of social media users have admitted that they had at some point shared at least one article full of disinformation on social media. There are many who don’t even read the articles themselves, but only read the headlines. Sometimes, these headlines are even written in such a way that, when truncated by the platform, they appear to be something completely different from what they are. This can have significant and even dangerous consequences, and I have examples of this where it could even turn life-threatening.
	Case 1: COVID “cures” and hoax claims
Possibly the most well-known example of the spread of disinformation becoming a real-life hazard was during the COVID-19 health emergency. During that time, people not only from the USA but from all over the world were spreading disinformed articles about everything from phony “cures” and “treatments” for COVID-19 to flat-out stating that the entire thing was a hoax invented for political purposes and they can and should ignore the whole thing and go about their lives as they had before the pandemic. Such articles had spread throughout social media and have influenced many members of the public to forgo responsible practices during the pandemic, and the ones who paid the most for it were not them, but rather, those they had encountered, leading to many otherwise avoidable deaths. Even ones that did not lead to deaths from COVID led to other issues, such as a shortage of hydroxychloroquine, a medicine used to treat lupus, being touted as a cure or even vaccine for COVID, leading to many people with lupus for a while being unable to obtain the medicine needed to keep them as healthy as possible. There is no medicine on the market to similarly treat lupus, so those with it had to go without it because it was being incorrectly touted as a COVID treatment.
	Case 2: #pizzagate
Another example actually led to a mass shooting at a pizza restaurant. During the 2016 Presidential election, there was a scandal called “#pizzagate.” This involved a rumor started by supporters by then-candidate Donald Trump that various members of the Democratic Party, including then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, were frequenting various restaurants, the most notable being Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant in Washington, DC, for purposes of engaging in the child sex trafficking that Trump’s supporters also alleged that the restaurant was used for as part of a Satanic ritual to remain youthful. They used an actual real-life sex scandal, that of politician Anthony Weiner, claiming that his emails contained hidden codes to aid members of the Democratic Party to engage in such acts. This also played off the fact that Clinton herself was in the middle of a scandal involving having used a private email server to conduct official government business, something that the right wing had been using heavily as ammunition against her. This was widely shared on social media, first on more fringe sites such as the infamous 4chan, and then on more mainstream sites such as Facebook, and it took off both among right-wing groups and those not necessarily on the right but were unhappy that Hillary Clinton was chosen as the nominee. Even after Clinton losing the election to Trump in 2016, that did not stop this disinformation from spreading. Eventually, it turned catastrophic when somebody went into the Comet Ping Pong with an assault rifle and opened fire. On top of that, the owner of the restaurant continued to receive death threats even after the election had ended.
	Conclusion
As discussed in class, there is a significant amount of confirmation bias inherent in social media. Many people will believe something that backs up their views, whether it is real or fabricated. The public cannot be trusted to fact-check because it has been proven that many do not. With such disinformation being spread by news organizations, at best, the public becomes less informed, but at worst, it could lead to horrific consequences, such as mass shootings and unnecessary COVID deaths and risks to people with other illnesses. The journalistic community has a responsibility to inform people of the truth and only the truth to the very best of their ability, as not doing so has very real negative repercussions.


CON SECOND ARGUMENT (BRODY)
Why People Consume Misinformation
The spread of misinformation is influenced heavily by psychological and financial factors that are out of the control of journalists. Misinformation spreads rapidly, often by individuals unaware they are consuming misinformation or by those with a deliberate agenda. As stated by the American Psychological Association (2024) repeated exposure to misinformation increases the likelihood of people accepting it as truth, therefore increasing the likelihood of it being disseminated. Notably, this spread isn't solely contingent on the belief in the information's accuracy, only that belief in its accuracy increases the spread.
In addition, detecting misinformation is challenging because people prioritize understanding new information over verifying its accuracy and the more often misinformation is repeated, the more credible it seems to the average person. Furthermore, misinformation that casts a negative image on specific social, cultural, or political groups taps into deep-seated biases and personal identities, increasing the chances of someone sharing it. Political biases and personal identity significantly influence one's willingness to spread false information, with people willingly spreading misinformation that aligns with their beliefs.
There are also emotional factors that influence the chances of misinformation being shared, misinformation that elicits strong emotional reactions or aligns with a person's perceived societal norms becomes more likely to be shared. Even when individuals recognize the falsity of the information, they may still consciously choose to spread it to conform to group norms or express underlying motivations.
A potential way to aid in curbing this spread would be to educate people on how to identify misinformation and the harms of spreading misinformation when they do identify it. This responsibility to educate people, however, does not fall onto journalists.
Economic Incentives for Social Media Platforms and the Marketing Industry
Misinformation has the potential to generate large amounts of revenue for social media platforms and the massive digital marketing industry. In 2023, the digital marketing industry was worth a staggering 625 billion Euros (Ruiz 2023). This immense value prompts social media platforms and news outlets to maximize their site traffic and clicks on news articles, as this directly translates into more valuable ad space and increased profits for the company. With social media platforms and news sites hotly competing for views, controversial content becomes a potent tool in this competition. Whether it's misinformation about politically polarizing conflicts or sensationalized news about controversial figures, these stories attract levels of high engagement and are shared across media platforms rapidly, which results in driving more eyes towards advertisements.
As a result, social media has become a primary breeding ground for misinformation. With millions of users worldwide, platforms are eager to keep engagement and user counts high, as this boosts their attractiveness to advertisers. To do this, sites tend to allow or actively promote controversial and misleading content. This strategy increases short-term profits and pleases advertisers, but in the long term, it results in the distrust of the media.
The repercussions on journalism are severe. People's trust in the media begins to erode as they struggle to distinguish between outlets and platforms that strive for truth and those that propagate misinformation. The indiscriminate spread of misinformation undermines the credibility of all news sources, tarnishing the reputation of even those that adhere to high journalistic standards. This blanket distrust is particularly damaging for smaller, independent publications that refuse to engage in misinformation but cannot compete financially with their larger counterparts.
An example of finances having an impact on the credibility of the news can be seen in Eastern Europe, specifically countries like Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova. In these countries, mainstream media and independent journalists often publish misinformation as a significant revenue source (Szakacs 2020). In Serbia and Hungary, for instance, the largest revenue streams for these outlets come from government subsidies and cash injections. This creates a cycle where media entities become vectors for government propaganda, producing misinformative content to secure government funding. The outcome is a media environment where accurate, critical reporting is scarce, as publications and journalists fear losing financial support from the state.
When there is a billion-dollar industry involved in the dissemination of misinformation, it is hard to squarely pin the responsibility on journalists to prevent misinformation from spreading, when journalists lack the power to influence the decision-making process occurring above them.

Rebuttal Pro team

First i would like to come back to Giulia's first argument
Mentioned that the prime responsibility should not be with the journalists, because the rapidity of output has changed 
I would counter that by saying that especially in these cases it is important to put quality over speed, and i believe that you can only assure quality when somebody is responsible for the output
Especially when you mention that it could be counterproductive if journalists would take more time to fact check information and that viewers are mostly interested in rapidly given information, i would argue that 
I would not underestimate viewers, i think there is still a large number of people who appreciate high quality journalism on which they can rely to form their opinion
If journalists do not break the cycle of giving more and more breaking news who are more likely to push misinformation, i believe that the trust in the news will diminish even more 

You also mentioned that in times of crisis fact checking is very difficult 
I would agree, because there is always some propaganda from all involved parties 
But what i would counter is, that it is possible for journalists to give information under reserve, and to make it clear that the information can be false 
This would give journalists the possibility to publish urgent iformation, but at the same time they would not be responsible if it turns out to be false, because they can still correct themself 


next i would like to come back to brodies arguments 
I would agree with your first argument that the spread of misinformation is also due to lack of education and already biased persons. But then you finished your first argument by saying that it is not the responsibility of journalists to educate people. I would heavily argue that. In my opinion journalists play a very high role in the education of people. When we build our opinion about topics which are not based on our own experiences, we often rely on information given by the news. In this sense a journalist is supplying information which we choose to educate ourselves.

based on the pro team speeches, write a rebuttal for the con team