Monthly Archives: February 2014

Michael Sam and the media

Posted on by
Reply

By RYAN HENSELER

Earlier this week, former Missouri defensive end and NFL prospect Michael Sam came out as gay, and will likely become the first openly gay NFL player following the draft in April.

Since Sam’s announcement, the news media, especially ESPN, has covered the story non-stop. Articles on Sam have filled the pages of ESPN.com, stories about him have been covered by Sportscenter, and his NFL draft stock has been constantly analyzed.

However, while most media sources have been highly supportive of Sam, the question remains; are they really doing him any favors by constantly featuring the story? Or are they actually hurting the cause of the player that they claim to embrace?

Since Sam has come out, certain NFL executives that wished to remain anonymous have stated that his draft stock will likely fall following the revelation. Some would say that this only reinforces the macho, misogynist stereotype of the NFL.

However, most teams that pass on Sam in the draft will not do so out of hatred or homophobia, but a desire to avoid the media circus that will inevitably follow Sam throughout the season.

NFL teams are well known for trying to avoid “distractions” at all costs. Any type of story that attracts severe media coverage is seen as a threat to the team’s on-field performance.

A recent example that exemplifies this idea is the ongoing saga of former Miami Dolphins players Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin. When the story first broke of alleged bullying in the locker room, the team was above .500 and contending for the playoffs.

After the story made national headlines and became a “distraction” to players, the Dolphins lost their last two games to division rivals New York and Buffalo and missed the playoffs.

The point is, networks such as ESPN claim to be fully behind Michael Sam, but constantly adding to the story will only reinforce the idea in executives’ minds that having Sam on their team could potentially cause a distraction in the locker room that could manifest itself on the football field.

If the news media really want to help Michael Sam succeed as a professional, they should limit their coverage of the story and allow him to be seen first and foremost as a very, very good football player with NFL talent who happens to be gay, rather than simply the gay player.

Sports equality: Gay athletes in sports

Posted on by
Reply

By KELLY BRODY

It seems as though we are living in the “Age of Equality.” Gay marriage is being passed in many new states and countries, and more and more celebrities are embracing a “don’t hide who you truly are” attitude.

It’s cool now to be out of the closet and most of the world, in this progressive Age of Equality, is accepting of those who choose to announce to the world their sexual orientation.Yet while Hollywood has embraced ‘coming out,’ one sector of pop culture seems to be still hidden deep in the closet and less accepting of gays — the world of sports.

Seen as a testament to one’s manhood that dates back to the testosterone-heavy first-ever Olympic Games, sports are often a sign of heterosexuality. It’s a common misunderstanding that a boy involved in sports can’t be gay, which is why many parents suspecting of the sexual orientation of their sons feel that the “cure” is sports like football.

With the recent announcement of Micheal Sam, a young NFL prospect hailing from the University of Missouri who came out as gay, the sporting world has been in shock. Not often does a football player shed his macho image and come forward about his sexual orientation. He stated, “I am an openly proud gay man,” in a New York Times piece, but his teammates have known since August. If Sam is drafted and earns a spot on a team roster, he will be the first openly gay player in the NFL.

Still, eight NFL staff and coaches that were polled by Sports Illustrated believe that Sam will drop in the draft due to his announcement. Backlash isn’t uncommon for gay athletes. Tweets often contained strong language. Two examples: “So, message to Michael Sam and those like him: Nobody wants to hear about a man who likes to suck cock. Get back in the fucking closet” (@icanhasbailout) and “Michael Sam first openly gay athlete in the NFL??? that’s freaking disgusting!!!!!! should be kicked out if the NFL and the USA” (greyclark24).

Sam’s announcement is coming off the heels of British diver Tom Daley’s coming out, which he did via a YouTube video a few months ago. The Olympian was shown massive support, which could be due to the fact that diving is seen as a “gay” sport versus the masculinity of football. Another sport that is often labelled as “gay” is men’s figure skating. Still, American men’s figure skaters are encouraged to not announce their sexual orientation for the purpose of appealing to the American public and judges.

This fear of being gay in sports is something that should not exist in the coming years. Sexual orientation does not change the athleticism of great athletes, nor does it diminish their accomplishments. For this year’s Olympics in Sochi, where being a gay athlete is abhorred, the world’s athletes responded with the utmost support for LGBTQ rights. Germany walked in the opening ceremony wearing rainbow snowsuits, Greece’s athletes had rainbow fingertips on their gloves, and Blake Skejellerup, an openly gay New Zealand speed skater, wore a rainbow pin.

With the bravery of both Michael Sam and Tom Daley, hopefully more athletes will feel safe coming out of the closet and the Sochi Olympics will open the eyes of the world, especially Russia, that discrimination of gay athletes is not something to be tolerated in our ever evolving world.

Sochi not ready, but games begin

Posted on by
Reply

By NICK CARRA

The opening ceremonies for the Winter Olympic Games began at 11 a.m last Friday and reports from journalists about the conditions of the host city Sochi, Russia, are are not looking good.

Hotels are in shambles. Reporters and athletes live in rooms that would disgust me with their colorless, broken-down walls and filthy bathrooms.  The locks on doors do not work, plumbing is not fully functional, water looks like warm beer and curtains and walls are torn apart.

A reporter tweeted a picture of two glasses of water from Sochi, Russia. Hotels advised residents to avoid the water because it was "dangerous."

A reporter tweeted a picture of two glasses of water from Sochi, Russia.  Hotels advised residents to avoid the water because it was “dangerous.”

From what it looks like, Sochi isn’t ready to host the Winter Olympic Games. Do an image search for “Sochi Olympic hotel conditions.” Inside you will find pictures of toilets placed feet away from each other without privacy, blank walls and malfunctioning electricity.

Even the slope-style snowboarding course was inadequate.

Employees were seen hours before Friday’s events working on the slope-style course, athletes say the snow conditions aren’t good and some have even been injured during the practice runs.

Marika Enne of Finland was carried off in a stretcher, after hitting her head during the slope-style practice run.  U.S athlete Shaun White jammed his wrist during the practice as well.

White withdrew from the event, although his main focus is to win the half-pipe, he would also like to avoid injury.

“With the practice runs I have taken, even after course modifications and watching fellow athletes get hurt, the potential risk of injury is a bit too much for me to gamble my other Olympics goals on,” White said regarding his withdrawal.

During the opening ceremony, the fifth ring in the Olympic symbol failed to illuminate, which furthers the thought that Sochi just may have too much on their hands to handle the Olympic games.  From what it looks like, those in Russia failed to prepare the city of Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics.

Time crunches and fact checking

Posted on by
Reply

By KERRIE HECKEL

When the two bombs at the Boston Marathon went off on April 15, 2013, I was sitting in a class at my former high school, nearly 3,000 miles away. In less than half an hour, I found out about the bombing. Not from a teacher or announcement, nor a radio or television, but through a tweet sent out by CNN.

While only 8 percent of Americans use Twitter to receive news today, according to Pew research, that number is growing.

Part of the appeal is that Twitter and other online resources alike make circulating news faster now than it has ever been.

The beauty of a tweet is that journalists that have Twitter accounts can write and share a breaking story in seconds. Some will even send out a tweet directly after an interview.

Then to lessen the time frame between a journalist receiving knowledge and forwarding it to us is the matter of smartphones.

Anyone who carries a smartphone has access to these tweets in the literal palm of their hand. And it seems everyone today has a smartphone.

Business Insider estimated that about 22 percent of people in the world would own a smartphone by the end of 2013. Considering areas of the world where technology like this still isn’t available, it is reasonable to believe that if we looked only at Americans the percentage would be higher. Of course, if you’d like to see for yourself you could always glance around a college campus and try to count the number of students walking, smart phone in hand.

Simply enough, Twitter and others alike have made fast paced reporting something we’ve become accustomed to.

More and more immediacy from our news sources is something many of us expect. So, it’s no wonder why many reporters and news organizations make getting a story out quickly a top priority.

And while circulating information quickly may be important, one wonders what we lose when journalists spend less time with their stories.

According to Pew research, 75 percent of Americans don’t think journalists get their facts straight. Could this be an effect of rushed reporting?

The fact of the matter is when reporters are competing with one another to get the information out first; fact checking can take somewhat of a back seat.

This isn’t all speculation; in 2012, The New York Times asked in an Internet survey if reporters should fact check what politicians say. This question, I think brought to many peoples’ attention that fact that fact checking is no longer as important as it once was.

Many people took offense to the question and The Times received a number of sarcastic answers asking if they were joking.

What many reporters and readers may not consider is that there is a trade off between speed and fact checking. The faster a story breaks the less time was spent fact checking, where a story that may take longer to publish allows the journalist more time to fact check. This inverse relation means reporting a story quickly and thoroughly is a feat for any journalist.

However if many people are demanding both, just what exactly are journalists to do?

Credibility issues grow with gossip

Posted on by
Reply

By CLARA BENDAYAN

The evolution and progression of social media have paved the path for novel ways to share news.

News sources are no longer limited to articles on websites or television programs. Outlets such as Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr have become sources for people to check the goings on around the world.

While it’s very convenient to be able to scroll through a Twitter feed and receive news, it isn’t always the most reliable way to secure accurate details. Twitter is a conversational, flow of thoughts type of outlet. People generate countless tweets in minutes, each reporting further details as more information is discovered and facts can be disproved within seconds. Another issue is the source of the news. Different news outlets inevitably stand out as more verifiable than others based on past credibility as well as the type of news they’re associated with.

A tweet from a reporter at CNN or Huffington Post is likely to be a very accurate source when seeking error-free and immediate news. Although some major news outlets provided some false information in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing last April, this can be attributed to the mere fact that reporting at an instant amid such a chaotic event prioritizes fast news rather than deliberate research to verify all facts.

Contrastingly, news outlets known for celebrity gossip such as TMZ come into question when searching for reliable news. When actor Paul Walker tragically died suddenly in a car accident last November, many celebrity gossip outlets immediately sent out a slew of tweets announcing his death. Facts were stated then retracted, later restated and retracted once again. False information was released as the article was published amidst the investigation, while many facts were still unknown. Many people tweeted that they refused to believe the news until a more reputable source confirmed it. Sure enough, after news sources such as The Los Angeles Times and The Huffington Post confirmed it, people began to send their condolences via Twitter and Facebook. Many people also went on to criticize and point out the multitude of inconsistencies present in the TMZ story after reading the complete, factual account from other more credible news outlets.

The same situation occurred this past week with the recent unexpected death of Philip Seymour Hoffman. Drug-related deaths tend to be very sudden and unanticipated, and people don’t accept the facts until they see confirmation on reputable news sources and televised news programs. In this case, TMZ was among the first news outlets to break the tragic story. Many people refused to believe it as there were rumors of a death hoax surrounding Hoffman before his actual passing. A while after TMZ broke the story people finally began to accept the news when The Wall Street Journal tweeted confirmation.

A journalist’s credibility is of utmost importance as no publication or outlet wants to be associated with a reporter whose credibility comes into question. Aside from TMZ, there are countless websites that report mainly gossip or focus on entertainment news rather than hard news. With the Internet, the line between what is real and what is a hoax has become incredibly hazy. Many news websites don’t pride themselves on accuracy and focus instead on delivering scandalous news that will appeal to readers.

Magazines such as Ok! and Star sell out on stands because people want to indulge in some quick gossip. However, when it comes to seeking out serious news people want nothing to do with them.

So, while we enjoy indulging in our guilty pleasures and reading celebrity gossip, perhaps their topics of coverage have garnered them an unfortunate position of incredibility when it comes to reporting serious news. While social media sites have been vital in advancing the way in which reporters deliver immediate news, they have also been instrumental in exposing people to the fact that news may not always be verifiable and not all sources can or should be trusted blindly. Should TMZ strictly stick to reporting the whereabouts and affairs of Hollywood’s starlets and leave the serious work for CNN, The Wall Street Journal and the like? Many people seem to think it best.

Writing with a national perspective

Posted on by
Reply

By NICOLE HOOD

I recently read a CNN article on the preliminary session of the Syrian peace talks, in which a peculiar event took place — Iran was invited to the conference and then dis-invited by UN chief Ban Ki-moon.

The reporters went on to say that ‘Western leaders believe Iran has provided military and intelligence support to Syrian government forces,’ and that fighters from Iran-backed militia have fought on the side of the Syrian government. When I first read this, who actually dis-invited Iran was unclear to me, as was the reason that the event occurred. The succession of the reporters’ choices implies that the reason Iran did not attend/was dis-invited was for military reasons.

The reality of the situation was that the UN gave Iran an ultimatum: that Iran could attend the peace conferences on the side of the UN (against the Syrian government) or they could not attend. Iran chose not to stand against Syria, and did not attend. This was information available to my International Studies teacher but not to the reporters at the time, and they used Western leaders’ opinions as their next step in explaining the information.

Does this represent a nationalistic explanation of international events?

I think so. This nationalism, I believe, comes out naturally and is almost inescapable. The only way one could report this in an absolutely unbiased way would be to provide the audience with a transcript of the talks and let them come to their own conclusions. People generally want a summary — and all summaries are written from the view of the reporter. Most people with an interest in world news still do not want an intensive reading representing a complex and dizzying array of international relations.

That being said, the fact that our tendency towards nationalism is expressed with militaristic assumptions can be dangerous in the world of reporting—and in our own lives. To assume militaristic reasons behind anything because of a lack of information might be rationally considering all possibilities—or it might be demonization of other countries or other parts of the world that we don’t understand.

I believe that the fault lies not particularly in presenting this one personal conclusion (of many possible conclusions) but in leaving out that they could not find a definite reason to present to the audience or that it was only one conclusion of many. Had the reporters mentioned the lack of information, I (and other readers) would be less inclined to confidently believe that militaristic support was the key to figuring out what was happening.

After reading the article, that piece of information stood out most to me — and then, the next day I learned what I confidently took away from the article was wrong. Iran was not particularly hiding something military and that was not why they were dis-invited. The slightest difference in presentation of information makes a big difference.

For more information about this, go to:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/world/europe/syria-geneva-talks/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

Celebrity obsession: Is it really news?

Posted on by
Reply

By PHOEBE FITZ

The story of Justin Bieber’s DUI arrest was a news and entertainment media frenzy.

From newspapers to magazines, TV shows to social media, it was impossible not to be bombarded with information regarding the scandal. Why is it that the story of a teenage boy being arrested in Miami is front page news for days? How has our concept of “journalism” and “news” come to focus on what many see to be an unimportant event?

These questions have a simple answer. Bieber’s story was such big news because of the size of his following—millions and millions of tween girls. As one of the biggest pop stars on the planet, his every move is documented and analyzed, providing whoever writes about it with a plethora of internet hits or TV views.

However, does every young girl in America being in love with Bieber constitute America’s most prolific and respected news organizations to dedicate so much of their time and effort to covering the story of his arrest?

Perhaps incidents like these are a sign of changing times, of our society as a wholes’ obsession with social media and through that, celebrities. Twitter has more than 230 million active users, with 100 million of them logging in every day. The accessibility of Twitter allows many users easy access into what used to be the private world of celebrities.

Thanks to social media outlets like Twitter, it is becoming increasingly common for people to become celebrity obsessed, particularly in the case of Justin Bieber. With almost 50 million Twitter followers who are quick to defend him — in the case of his arrest — or target his potential girlfriends—actress Selena Gomez received death threats as did model Cailin Russo — Bieber’s followers are an enthusiastic bunch.

Through our obsession with social media, we are cultivating a society that is obsessed with celebrities and “celebrity news”. This category used to stand on it’s own, differentiated from regular news. Perhaps now the two are merging. Perhaps, for better or for worse, we are redefining what is truly considered “news.”

CVS switches to tobacco-free stores

Posted on by
Reply

By SOFIA ORTEGA

The second-largest drugstore group in the country, CVS, announced that by October the company would stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products in all of its stores. And it has generated quite a bit of news media attention this week.

“We came to the decision that cigarettes and providing health care just don’t go together in the same setting”, stated Larry J. Merlo, CEO of CVS Caremax.

It is projected that the company will take away 17 cents in profits per share of stock a year. To make up the revenue loss, the company will start this spring a smoking termination program to help Americans get over the habit.

In 2000, the company opened MinuteClinic, the first retail medical clinics in the country, offering its service in more than 800 CVS pharmacies. As it is hoping to open 700 more by 2017, it was crucial to position CVS Caremax tobacco-free to seek the growth of the company.

ChangeLab Solutions, a nonprofit organization that offers legal evidence about public health stated that more than 400,000 American die each year due to smoking, and that unfortunately, the rate has remained stagnant over the last ten years.

But, will CVS decision help lower the smoking rate in the U.S.?

Unfortunately, most of the tobacco purchase is done in convenience stores. Therefore, CVS’s contribution to promote a tobacco-free generation will mostly mark their transition to be recognized as a health care company rather than just another drugstore.

However, the decision of a leading pharmacy chain to stop the sale of tobacco products will probably resonate in different states to independent groups as an opportunity to fight for a law that prohibit drugstores from selling these products.

Most Americans have a drugstore only five miles from home. Since studies have shown that -the more tobacco retailers, the higher smoking rates-. Prohibiting the sale of tobacco in drugstores will automatically reduce smoking rates.

A pharmacy’s goal should be to look for the health of the population; therefore, their stock should go according to the company’s goal and not obstruct it.

As President Obama said, CVS decision will help advance the “efforts to reduce tobacco- related deaths, cancer, and heart disease, as well as bring down health care costs- ultimately saving lives and protecting untold numbers of families from pain and heartbreak for years to come.”

Media focus on Russia’s anti-gay laws

Posted on by
Reply

By NICOLE LOPEZ-ALVAR

Friday is the official start of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia; however, the biggest story coming out of Sochi has little to pertain to the games at all.

From the homepage of Google to the breaking headline of any online news source, there is no doubt that the media is fighting back against Russia’s anti-gay policies being enforced as the Winter Games ensue.

The law, which criminalizes any discussion of gay rights in the presence of minors, is an example of the unfortunate reality we live in — discrimination continues to persist in many parts of the world. According to the Associated Press, gay activists have been penalized across Russia ever since the law was implemented in 2013. Such a law only fuels hatred and justifies violence.

Yet, there is one global medium that has sided with civil rights — that is, the news media.

Google’s “Doodle” on its search homepage, which debuted on Thursday night, is its logo with an illustration incorporating the colors of the rainbow. It has been seen around the world, even Russia, and has sparked both cheer and outrage. Below the logo was a subtle, yet powerful, message in clear support of equality for all.

Google, a worldwide corporation, has taken a stand to publicly show support for LGBT people who are struggling for equality around the world.  According to Google’s website, “every day Google answers more than one billion questions from people around the globe in 181 countries and 146 languages.”

That is, roughly one billion people a day, whether aware so or not, will glance at that logo and be aesthetically drawn to the colors of the rainbow — the official colors of the pride flag. It is in these subtle ways that the media and many major corporations have brilliantly managed to maintain the principles in which they stand for — delivering to all the people.

Google is not alone. Three official sponsors of the U.S. Olympic Committee, Chobani, AT&T, and DeVry University, have taken public stands against the anti-gay law in Russia as well.

These positive actions have outshined the media’s coverage of the anti-gay law itself. Their public defense of the LGBT community during one of the world’s most televised events, the Winter Olympics, is an indicator of how both companies and the media can work hand-in-hand to create change in this society. These efforts that are seen, read, and heard through media outlets can influence government policies around the world.

While mainstream media does not hold the opinions of every individual, it is the one domain that can have the largest positive impact on society.

The debate on what is the “proper” media representation of the LGBT community is still ongoing, but there is not doubt that major companies’ positive actions can create a domino effect on other companies to follow suit. In this day and age, showing public support via media platforms is vital in order to effectively communicate any message, especially one of equality.

The Sherman effect in sports journalism

Posted on by
Reply

By RYAN HENSELER

As most know, last Sunday the Seattle Seahawks emerged as Super Bowl champions, manhandling the AFC champion Denver Broncos, 43-8. The win was largely thanks to the defense, particularly the secondary, nicknamed the Legion of Boom (L.O.B). The unit has been touted recently as one of the greatest defenses in NFL history. However, arguably the best player on that defense, CB Richard Sherman, is also undoubtedly the most controversial figure in the game today.

Sherman made national headlines due to his postgame interview following the NFC Championship game, an event in which he made a game-saving play to help the Seahawks defeat the San Fransisco 49ers. When Erin Andrews asked Sherman to analyze the final play, he forcefully yelled at the camera, “I’m the best corner in the game! When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that’s the result you gonna get! Don’t you ever talk about me! … Don’t you ever open your mouth about the best, or Imma shut it for you real quick! L.O.B!”

Obviously, this response is not typical for a professional athlete in a post-game interview. However, it raises the question, should it be? Most players are taught by their organizations to speak to reporters in near clichés and give simple answers that are seen as more professional. For example, a more common answer to Andrews’ question would be, “I was just trying to make a play and I’m glad my teammate was able to come down with the interception. We played a great game today and the 49ers are a great team.”

Although something to that effect would be a typical answer, it is questionable whether that is all that the player would really like to say. The reason that sports in general, and the NFL in particular, are so popular and exciting to watch is the intensity and passion displayed by the players during every single play. When you think about it, it is a weird concept to ask the players to shift out of hyper-competitive mode into interview mode so soon after the game is over.

Would the game not be that much more interesting if more post-game interviews were honest and candid like Sherman’s? It would add a whole new element to the game for the fans, who are rarely really able to see the trash-talking and personal interactions between opposing players that go on between the lines.

Even Andrews herself, who many thought would be troubled by the incident, was very supportive of Sherman, saying, “I wish more athletes would be like that. We want someone to lose their minds like that.”

Although it is unlikely that most coaches, particularly old-school coaches like the New England Patriots’ Bill Belichick, will allow their players to speak this way to the media, it will be interesting to see if there are any even minor changes in the way that players handle reporters next season. If there are, and fiery interviews like Sherman’s become more commonplace, we could be seeing the start of a completely new style of sports journalism.

Should college athletes get paid?

Posted on by
Reply

By ADRIENNE MOTLEY

This is one of the biggest discussions involving college athletes today. The average athletic scholarship over the course of four years is valued at more than $100,000.  But the scholarship doesn’t put money in athlete’s pockets for food and clothing.

Being a student-athlete is a full time job. You have workouts or practice before classes begin, and are expected to pay attention through three and sometimes four classes in a row. Then after we have to lift weights and go to mandatory study hall. Our day starts at the crack of dawn and usually ends when it’s dark. We give up going home for holidays and summer break for competition and practices.

A student athlete gets exploited to bring money to the school by playing games. Athletes can’t earn money by signing autographs, but NCAA executives make millions of dollars. The NCAA and CBS signed a $10.8 billion television agreement over 14 years.

I believe student athletes should profit off of being a member of a collegiate athletic team. The little money we would profit would be nowhere near what executives make, but it would help us with extra expenses not detailed in an athletic scholarship.

Snowden nominated for Nobel prize

Posted on by
Reply

By JENNA JOHNSON

One man’s criminal is another man’s … Nobel Peace Prize nominee?

Edward Snowden, former National Security Agency contractor, is now taking refuge in Russia after leaking classified NSA surveillance information. Snowden faces felony charges including espionage and theft of government property in the United States.

While he faces severe punishments in his homeland, some foreign governments have a more positive outlook on the situation. Norwegian lawmakers Bard Vegar Solhjell and Snorre Valen announced Jan. 29 on their website that they nominated Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize.

According to Solhjell and Valen, Snowden contributed to peace by “revealing the nature and technological prowess of modern surveillance.” They also said that they recognized the damage to security he may have caused, and noted that they “do not necessarily condone all disclosures.”

Snowden isn’t only up for awards in Norway.  His leakage of 1.7 million classified NSA records also won him the title of International Newsmaker of the Year by editors at Postmedia (fun fact: a close second was the royal baby.)

So, what is Edward Snowden? A whistle-blowing champion of free information or an unpatriotic traitor to the United States?

This is where the line between the freedom of the press and protecting national security becomes inherently fuzzy.

On one hand, Snowden did shed light on shocking information previously unknown by most Americans. According to his information, the government had monitored the phone calls of nearly every American and used surveillance for foreign leaders and terrorist organizations.

Most Americans will likely forgive terrorist surveillance, but recoil at the notion that their own phone calls were tapped. This information made public by Snowden allowed Americans to express their opinions regarding invasion of privacy by the government. Perhaps Snowden should not be punished so harshly for reporting questionable government actions.

Then again, maybe ignorance is bliss.

When it comes to the topic of national security, civil liberties have oft gone unprotected (Does the phrase “clear and present danger” ring a bell?). Many NSA officials now claim that the security of the United States has been threatened due to the leaked information from Snowden.

Thus, the age-old argument of how free freedom is continues. Does the freedom of the press protect revealing information that could potentially threaten a nation? Is it a journalist’s ethical duty to disclose the truth?

The answer is not, nor will it ever be, concrete. However, Snowden has created quite a stir with his NSA file leakage. No matter how noble the intentions, in my opinion, the commotion he caused should win nearly any award but the one for “peace.”

Care needed in covering NFL drug policy

Posted on by
Reply

By JOHN RIOUX

The risks and benefits of marijuana use to treat injuries has become a major debate in National Football League circles. With the recent increase in awareness about concussions, marijuana is being looked at as an option to treat these often-occurring injuries.

While most NFL reporters are familiar covering statistics from games, this issue brings a political discussion that is taking place in our government right now.

Journalists must approach this topic with caution, as there is no concrete evidence to suggest that it is either helpful or harmful to remedy injuries. It is however time for not only doctors, but journalists to closely examine the effects it could potentially have as a useful substance.

Super Bowl-winning Seattle Seahawks’ Coach Pete Carroll agrees with this notion saying, “the world of medicine is trying to do the exact same thing and figure it out and they’re coming to some conclusions.”

While marijuana might not be a useful medicine to utilize, the addiction to painkillers that many NFL players deal with proves there is a need for change. Former offensive lineman Kyle Turley recalls after games “ The trainers and the doctors used to go down the aisle [of the plane] and say, ‘Who needs what?” in regard to substances such as Vicodin.

While this is a touchy subject to report on, it is critical the news media communicate the findings medical researchers and doctors have about this substance. With the league currently continuing to look for ways to increase player safety, we have to know if they will go to extreme lengths that may be unpopular with fans of the game.

The political argument does not matter if the risks outweigh the benefits. Football is a lethal sport and if the new findings prove any advantages in helping with the injuries that occur, they must be taken advantage of.

There will be reporters scared of the repercussions the NFL might set down on them if they publish a story that negatively affects them, but that does not matter. The people have the right to know what this new-found research proves.

Hollywood drug abuse and news media

Posted on by
Reply

By KELLY BRODY

They say death comes in threes and, after the recent celebrity deaths of Cory Monteith and Paul Walker, the loss of Phillip Seymour Hoffman this past Sunday rounds out the long-believed superstition.

Out of the three high-profile deaths, two were from drug use and overdose. Walker’s was the only true accidental death, as it involved a fatal car accident where Walker wasn’t even the one behind the wheel. Yet the news media portrayed all three deaths as equally tragic.

There’s a difference between accidental tragedy and tragedy brought on by drugs, though. The news media posted articles that outlined the slew of drugs found in both Monteith and Hoffman’s bodies, but did little to comment on the root of the problem–the oft-hidden and personal struggle that comes along with drug abuse.

More and more stars are dying from drug related deaths these days and, often enough, these deaths come as a shock. Not many suspect that A-list Hollywood stars would fall victim to the same drugs that can be easily obtained by college students, people on the streets; quite frankly, anybody.  Moreover, they don’t suspect that these stars who seem so happy and well-off on the outside are coping with inner demons to turn to drugs in the first place.

Monteith serves as a prime example of the façade celebrities can put up to the public to seem happy: he had a loving, steady girlfriend in Lea Michele, his costar on the successful and still running TV show Glee, and remained an active member in his charity Project Limelight.  His death shocked many of the young fans of Glee, and should serve as a lesson to the impressionable youth that meddling with drugs, for whatever the reason, can result in an untimely and yes, tragic death.

Instead of merely listing the toxicology report of stars who die drug related deaths, the news media should focus on transforming the deaths into a wake-up call for how society deals with drug abuse and addiction. Both Monteith and Hoffman admitted in earlier interviews of struggling with addiction on and off from a very young age. Who knows how many young starlets there are right now who are secretly struggling with addition? What would be even more beneficial than an exposé on the dangers of drug use would be an open discussion of how to cope with addiction and insight into how to recover from the disease.

Kids are taught from a young age that “drugs are bad” yet it does not stop them, or high profile celebrities, from using them. For every story about a celeb in rehab, there should be another about stars speaking out against drug abuse, or doing charity work, or enjoying sober life. Society often looks up to the Hollywood elite and, if emphasis is placed on their healthy habits, or alternatively, their morph from addiction to a state of mental and physical well being, as is the case with Demi Lovato, perhaps many drug deaths can be prevented in the future.