Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Latest push in fake news is pushing fake experts

During the 2016 presidential election, hundreds of fake sources used social media to spread fake news. Many of these posts were traced back to the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm that used social networks to create divides among Americans and influence the election. This is known as cognitive hacking and is the real scandal of the 2016 election, said Dr. Craig Albert, director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies program and associate professor of political science at Katherine Reese Pamplin College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences at Augusta University. Fake sources using social media to spread fake news are often able to reach a large audience who may never realize the stories are false, Albert said. In some instances, entire organizations and groups have been created under false pretenses and have had millions of social media followers. “When so many people see fake news on their newsfeeds, they become a product of their belief in a fake story,” Albert said. “So, a fake story controls their opinions.” Now, Russia is taking fake news a step farther. The newest trend is creating a false persona to push fake news on U.S. news organizations. “They will have an expert create a story, and they will create credentials and a website to give credibility to this individual,” Albert said. “When media outlets try to ascertain the credibility of a person they typically visit the individual’s website or look at their resume. It appears legitimate, so the source is validated, and news outlets run the story.” In many cases, though, these are false stories by individuals with fake credentials. Albert calls this source hacking. Dr. Albert is an expert on American politics and political philosophy. He has experience with all forms of local and national news organizations and is available to speak to media regarding cognitive and source hacking. Contact us to schedule an interview with Dr. Albert or to learn more about his expertise. Source:

Why Trump revoking Brennan's security clearance changes the game

Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders began the August 15 press briefing with an announcement: President Donald Trump had revoked former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance. Brennan served under President Barack Obama from 2013-2017. Since the 2016 presidential election, Brennan has been a staunch opponent of Trump and is known for expressing his opinions about the president on social media. Trump explained his decision by citing Brennan’s behavior and commentary on social media and accused him of colluding with Russia and profiting off U.S. secrets. Brennan denied the claims and many critics, including both republicans and democrats, called the decision “unprecedented” and “authoritarian.” Are the critics’ right? Dr. Craig Albert, Director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies and associate professor of political science, says the decision is highly unusual. Generally, Albert said, an individual’s security clearance is revoked for security reasons or for conviction of a felony. “Although President Trump gave reasons for the revocation of Brennan’s clearance, it seems rather clear that the personal distaste between the two played a part in the decision,” he said. A scholar of political science and political philosophy, Albert said it’s possible that this decision was intended to set a precedent, especially since Trump has discussed revoking security clearances from other former government officials. “Usually, clearance is revoked for specific crimes, financial hardship, moral turpitude or the clearance just runs out and is not renewed,” Albert said. “This seems to have more to do with personal animosity than any of the typical reasons.” Dr. Albert has experience with all forms of national and local news organizations and is available to speak to media regarding this issue. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview. Source:

Social media mentions of television advertising

Television advertising is an expensive proposition, so media planners and advertisers are devoting considerable attention to social media mentions of their advertising and the real-time feedback it can provide. David A. Schweidel, associate professor of marketing, and coauthor Beth L. Fossen 16PhD (Indiana U) study this trend by using data from actual television advertising on the broadcast networks and brand and program mentions of those same ads on Twitter. The pair found that television advertising does impact the volume of online word-of-mouth for the advertised brand and the program showing the ad. Ad and brand characteristics played a huge role in creating social media “chatter.” For instance, movie advertisements generated the largest increase in online word-of-mouth. Ads for phones, computers, notebooks, and tablets also created substantial increases in social media mentions. In contrast, apparel, dental care, nonprofit ads, and PSAs benefited the least in terms of online brand chatter. Higher rated programs resulted in more online chatter for the ads shown, likely due to the fact that these programs draw larger viewing audiences. Source:

Baylor Media Expert Shares Thoughts Re: Charges of Biased Media Coverage of Minorities

Early this week, 18-year-old Nia Wilson was stabbed to death on a platform while transferring trains in Oakland, California. Authorities said the attack was unprovoked. Media coverage of Wilson's death included photos from her social media accounts. One California television station chose to share a photo of Wilson, who was African American, holding what appeared to be a gun. The decision to run that particular photo sparked outrage, with many saying the photo added to a trend of a biased media portrayal of minorities. Mia Moody-Ramirez, Ph.D., professor of journalism, public relations and new media at Baylor University, is an expert on mass media representations of women, minorities and other underrepresented groups. "This incident brings back memories of the shooting deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Media outlets used various photos to portray them as menacing. It also brings to mind the hashtag: #IfTheyGunnedMeDown, which asks the question: 'If they gunned me down, what photo would media use?'" Moody Ramirez said. "Historically, media outlets have used such photos to: 1) frame the individuals a certain way, 2) add interest to the story, 3) stir up conflict. Awareness that this is happening is the best way to stop it in the future. Black Twitter has taken on this cause. In the 'clap back' culture of Black Twitter, news outlets are very likely to get called out for such behavior." Moody-Ramirez is the co-author of the new book "From Blackface to Black Twitter: Reflections on Black Humor, Race, Politics, & Gender." In 2013, she co-authored "The Obamas and Mass Media: Race, Gender, Religion, and Politics." She also authored "Black and Mainstream Press’ Framing of Racial Profiling: A Historical Perspective." Source:

Using social media to assess public sentiment

Large corporations, government agencies, and political campaigns increasingly are using social media listening platforms and software to monitor public sentiment online. According to research from David Schweidel, associate professor of marketing, and Wendy Moe (U of Maryland), the information gleaned from social media can provide useful insights for decision making, but only if the “comments are measured appropriately.” Since prior marketing research has focused on one social media venue or failed to acknowledge the differences in multiple social media venues, Schweidel and Moe discovered that these measurements of public sentiment fell short. Instead, they analyzed brand sentiment for an enterprise software company and a telecommunications business across a variety of social media platforms. Accounting for factors that varied across different social media platforms, the authors derived a measure of general brand impression (GBI). They showed that general brand impression was a leading indicator of shifts in brand tracking studies and stock price movements. Taken together, Schweidel and Moe’s “measure of GBI effectively captures movement in the underlying sentiment toward the brand.” Source:

Consumer word-of-mouth and social media

Certainly, marketers are well aware of the value of the consumers’ word-of-mouth (WOM) endorsements of a product or service. But the ubiquitous nature of social media demands that advertisers find new ways to tap into how consumers interact and communicate to leverage the power of WOM online. Panagiotis Adamopoulos, assistant professor of information systems & operations management; Vilma Todri, assistant professor of information systems & operations management; and Anindya Ghose (NYU-Stern) take a close look at the role of hidden personality traits of online users and how they play into the effectiveness of product WOM on Twitter. The trio used big data, machine learning methods, and causal inference econometric techniques to study consumer purchases made through Twitter accounts. The research showed an increase in the likelihood of a purchase by 47.58% when there was exposure to WOM tweets from a sender who had similar personality traits to the recipient of the information. The trio found that introvert users were much more accepting of WOM versus extrovert users. They also noted agreeable, conscientious, and open social media users are more effective influencers. The combinations of personality traits of disseminators and recipients of WOM impacted the decision to buy a product, with the researchers noting that a “WOM message from an extrovert user to an introvert peer increases the likelihood of a subsequent purchase by 71.28%.” Source:

Trump's Twitter Practices Unconstitutional: New Media, First Amendment Expert Weighs In

On Wednesday, a federal judge declared that President Trump's practice of blocking critics from his Twitter account is unconstitutional. The ruling was reached after several plaintiffs accused the president of violating their First Amendment rights by blocking their access to his Twitter feed. The plaintiffs argued they’d been blocked specifically because of their critical viewpoints. Trump’s 9-year-old @realdonaldtrump account has more than 50 million followers. "Yesterday’s ruling is important because it gives people freedom to consume the opinions of public figures on social media platforms. This is the same right individuals have with any other public forum such as newsprint and broadcast media," said Mia Moody- Ramirez, Ph.D., professor of journalism, public relations and new media at Baylor University. Moody-Ramirez is a nationally recognized expert in topics of new media, race, class and culture. She studies the media framing of various issues, including people of color, women and political candidates. Her book "From Blackface to Black Twitter: Critical Reflections on Black Humor, Gender, Race & Politics" will be available this summer. "Justice Department lawyers argued that it was Trump’s choice and blocking individuals should be no different from the president deciding in a room who not to listen/talk to. However, the ruling distinguishes Trump’s Twitter account — which, like public parks, is under government control. In public forums, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, regardless of a person’s viewpoint," Moody Ramirez explained. "Worth noting," she said, "is this ruling will not affect ordinary Twitter users who can block and follow other Twitter users. President Trump’s account @realdonaldtrump is a space operated by the government for government business, and therefore, cannot limit speech based on an individual’s viewpoints." Moody-Ramirez is the author of several books, including: * "From Blackface to Black Twitter: Critical Reflections on Black Humor, Gender, Race & Politics" (Peter Lang), summer 2018 * "The Obamas and Mass Media: Race, Gender, Religion, and Politics" (Palgrave Macmillan) with Dr. Jannette Dates, 2013 * "Black and Mainstream Press’ Framing of Racial Profiling: A Historical Perspective" (University Press of America), 2009 She is available to speak to reporters. Source:

#NeverAgain - Students Taking Matters Into Their Own Hands

On April 20, 2018, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting, students across the nation will walk out of their classrooms in protest of their leaders’ failure to pass laws protecting them from gun violence. Just last month, hundreds of thousands of students, teachers, and supporters rallied in Washington DC, for March for Our Lives, led by a group of students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. These students, some of the latest to be affected by gun violence in schools, are using their voices to inspire change. John Meisner, Assistant Professor of Education at Southern Utah University and advocate for students on and off campus, recently voiced his concerns and support. “As a voting adult, I’m horrified that this problem has only been getting worse since the Columbine High School tragedy, and our elected leaders pretend that there is nothing that can be done. We have countless laws that have been enacted regarding public safety, and yet for this one, we do nothing.” Meisner recommends that as parents, mentors, and peers, we should support the efforts of these students. “I’m hugely proud of these students for refusing to accept this inaction and taking matters into their own hands. I don’t know that we’ve ever seen such organization and movement by high school and junior high school students. They’re often disrespected as ‘entitled’ and ‘lazy,’ but this latest tragedy has mobilized this population into action. We’re seeing youthfulness and enthusiasm combined with a social media savvy that is a powerful force. I think that as adults we should be proud of these efforts and support them fully.” Students crave relevance in their school work and lives. According to Meisner, the walkout is a perfect example of this. “I’m hopeful that they will not relent on the pressure until something is done. Maybe with this new movement, the Parkland tragedy will be the last.” “As educators, we should not only be concerned about the physical well-being of our students but should also see that their academic wellbeing is important too. They will be fully invested in topics that matter to them.” John Meisner has a deep love of education and a passion for teaching. Meisner also serves on the Allies on Campus committee working to support LBGTQ+ students and faculty through social events and educational outreach. He is familiar with the media and available for an interview. Simply visit his profile. Source:

The increasing reaction to sexual harrasment

Dean Erika James published research on how firms respond to sexual harassment in 2006. She has updated her findings to include the influence of social media and how industry, especially Hollywood, responds to maintain reputation. Source:

Is Trump a Twitter Addict? Baylor Expert Says 'Yes'

Trump has said that Twitter is his way of communicating his thoughts directly with the world, bypassing the more traditional means of using the news media, which he tends to distrust. The president’s daily use of social media begs the questions: Can people be addicted to social media? If so, is President Trump an addict? “Yes and yes,” answered James Roberts, Ph.D., The Ben H. Williams Professor of Marketing in Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business. Roberts is a nationally known expert on consumer behavior, social media and smartphone addiction, and the effects of smartphone use on relationships. He recently published a new edition of his book, “Too Much of a Good Thing: Are You Addicted to Your Smartphone?” which includes a bonus chapter focused squarely on the Commander in Chief’s Twitter habits. “Addiction is a strong word,” Roberts said. “It’s best understood and defined as ‘continuing a behavior despite its negative consequences for you and others around you.’ Yes, we can be addicted to social media use just like we can be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Addiction can result from any behavior that produces pleasure in the brain.” In his look at President Trump, Roberts focused on the six core components applied by many health professionals when analyzing substance use disorders – salience, euphoria, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflicts and relapse. “Our inability to separate from technology is devastating to our well-being,” Roberts said. “Even if it’s not an addiction, it’s a deeply ingrained habit.” Source: