Andrew Conte’s Focus on Media: Closing gaps between cybersecurity experts, reporters |

Andrew Conte’s Focus on Media: Closing gaps between cybersecurity experts, reporters

The Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University and the Newseum Institute, a journalism think tank, recently hosted a workshop in Washington on media coverage of cybersecurity issues. Journalists and cybersecurity experts need to work at understanding each other better, participants concluded.
Tribune-Review contributing writer Andrew Conte.


They don’t even have the words.

Cybersecurity stories fill the headlines almost daily: The Equifax breach potentially compromised personal data of more than 140 million Americans — nearly half of us. Yahoo finally acknowledged losing email addresses and passwords for every single customer — about 3 billion accounts. We’re still waiting to find out just how much the Russians hacked into the 2016 general election .

We see such headlines so often that many of us have become numb to the potential risk. Worse, reporters covering these stories don’t always know how to describe the real danger — or how to separate legitimate threats from hyperbole. Too often, they lack the vocabulary, context and experience to converse with technical experts and convey meaningful alerts to the public. Instead, the public hears a wall of noise in which relatively minor events get similar billing to those that really threaten our lives.

This is what top cybersecurity experts, journalists and students concluded at a D.C. event hosted by Point Park University’s Center for Media Innovation and the Newseum Institute , a journalism think tank. The Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare provided technical support.

Part of the problem stems from experts who understand the technology — but have trouble explaining it to a lay person. Attendee Kim Albarella, senior director of cybersecurity marketing at payroll company ADP , told me: “Even when a cybersecurity reporter talks to someone in security … it’s still a very technical conversation that is often hard to understand. There is often a gap between the reporter and the security expert and that could lead to inconsistencies and sometimes, inaccuracies in reporting of security incidents.”

Another concern is news outlets using salacious headlines to attract internet clicks, even when stories don’t live up to the hype. The public, hurt because legitimate threats get the same treatment as minor ones, stops paying attention after a while.

Fortunately, strategies exist to solve these problems if journalists and cybersecurity experts are willing to work together.

Because even reporters who write frequently about cybersecurity sometimes struggle with jargon and concepts, we need a lexicon for understanding and communicating these issues. This could be as simple as an online glossary of common terms ?? updated as new technologies emerge. That would remove some of the mystery around cybersecurity. For instance, reporters often talk about the “dark net” as some mystical place. It’s just a part of the internet that requires specific protocols to access.

Reporters and cybersecurity experts also need to work more closely before a crisis happens to understand each other better. That way, they can talk intelligently and confidently when events occur.

Computer-security challenges change rapidly. Reporters in today’s disrupted media industry don’t always have time for in-depth conversations that don’t immediately result in stories. With a threat this complicated and dangerous, however, reporters and security experts must make time to work together for the public’s benefit.

Andrew Conte is the director of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.