Are Trump and Clinton Buying Fake Twitter Followers? By David Z. Morris, in Fortune magazine, describes the dilemma created by automated twitter accounts or what is most commonly referred to as bots. In the article Morris dolls out an example of a malicious individual called Andrés Sepúlveda who used bots to create a false public dialogue. Specifically, and according to Morris, “Using custom software, Sepúlveda directed 30,000 Twitter bots to create false enthusiasm for candidates and spread rumors about the opposition.”
Although Morris’s position seems credible at first—he mentions all the current candidates, and describes a real scenario—it’s after he narrows his focus to Hilary and Trump when we see his bias. But while Morris bias against Trump is legitimized when Sepúlveda reveals Trump’s campaign had attempted to hire him Morris bias against Hilary is never legitimized. I’m not saying Hilary is above suspicion, but if you’re going to accuse/suggest someone of conspiring to use bots to manipulate a campaign you better have evidence.
It seems this whole campaign from the media’s perspective has been about bastardizing the process. Why make accusations with evidence when making things up is so much easier. There should be universal standards in journalism, especially when the news is published by such rich and old publications like Fortune. Why does it seems as though those with the most resources seem to be the least accountable for their actions?
This shift in accountability could be argued as the reason Donald Trump has received so much support. Sure, he makes outrageous statements and publishes material that bears little resemblance to the truth, but so does a lot of media outlets. Face it, Donald Trump is a creation of bad reporting and unbacked accusations. Maybe if we took the time to understand a process or person before we made accusatory leaps we wouldn’t have a candidate like Donald Trump ahead in the primaries. But then again maybe not.