Monthly Archives: September 2015

3,200 rescuers diagnosed with cancer

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

Nick Schiralli barely escaped death 14 years ago because he was late for work that day. Astoundingly, 14 years later, the 68-year-old is suffering from a disease after inhaling 9/11 fumes.

The latest official data show that more than 3,200 cops, firefighters and New York City workers have been diagnosed with cancer. The number is still rising and the residents are excluded from this number. After the disaster, it still hasn’t stopped taking away innocent lives.

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after 9/11 took place, President George W. Bush and the New York government were eager to prove that they had not been overtaken by the terrorists. They issued a notice to the public that everything was under control and would return to normal soon. In order to appease and persuade the public, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Safety and Health Commission and the other departments endorsed “the air is safe to breathe; the water is safe to drink.”

Questioning usually comes after the rescuing. But after the 9/11 attacks, the American media and public opinion, who ordinarily criticize the government, became silent. A large number of television programs promoted the dedication and patriotism of the government, police, and the military, and rarely had a questioning voice.

Juan Gonzalez was the famous senior reporter, who dared to challenge the authority, but his questioning did not get much response. The environmental protection departments published data showing the air was “ within the security metrics” to stop criticism, but then people became affected and the public began to question: What is that irritating smell in the air? What is the substance that makes the fire continue to burn? Are there any toxic substances? However, the data released by the US government was still showing a safe and clear air quality and in order to prevent more questions from the press, the Environmental Protection Agency held an undisclosed press conference.

9/11 has always been a sensitive topic, but the fact is, the number of victims are still rising. In recent years, most of the mainstream media began to report the related issues and to pressure the government: the government should give an impartial explanation to the heroes and the victims of  9/11.

Camerawoman kicks fleeing refugees

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

As the refugee crisis in Europe continues to gain attention in the international and national news, a Hungarian camerawoman has also entered in the spotlight for her cruel actions captured on camera.

At a relocation camp in Roske, Hungary (near the Hungarian-Serbian border), hundreds of migrants, frustrated with conditions of the camp, pushed through police lines attempting to cross the border into Serbia.

As crowds of migrants began fleeing the police, a Hungarian camerawoman, identified as Petra Laszlo, began intentionally kicking and tripping people. The first video to emerge displayed Laszlo tripping a man as he ran while carrying his child. After being tripped, the man fell unto the ground and on top of his child. All the while, Laszlo recorded the entire thing.

Soon after the first, a second video emerged capturing Laszlo forcefully kick a young woman and other men as they fled from police.

U.S. news organizations picked up the story after videos and pictures of Laszlo’s behavior had been circulated through social media.

After reaching national and international news coverage, Laszlo’s employer, N1TV issued a statement denouncing Laszlo’s behavior as unacceptable and that her employment had been terminated.

Laszlo’s actions elicited anger and disappointment from social media users all around the world, which is completely understandable and expected.

After watching the videos and watching the coverage on the news, I was also outraged at her behavior. But now, the only thing I would like to know is why?

Why did Laszlo begin kicking and tripping people? In the first video, where Laszlo trips the man carrying his child, she makes sure to aim the camera directly on the man and his child as she trips them and as they fall to the ground.

This leads me to wonder if Laszlo did all of this just to create the “perfect shot.” Some reporters have been known to “stretch the truth” or flat-out lie to make a story seem more exciting or dangerous. The acts of sensationalizing stories and fear mongering the public are all too common in news today.

Although unfair, Laszlo’s actions reflected poorly on every professional in the journalism industry. From this point on, any video coverage of the migrant crisis in Europe will be viewed with a critical and eye from the public.

Sensationalism of 9/11 video coverage

Posted on by

By CHARLOTTE MACKINNON

Today marks the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, an event that changed America in so many ways – with news coverage being one of them.

The live coverage of the jets hitting the World Trade Center in New York City exposed millions of Americans to the horror that was happening, in real time, during the terrorist attack. News networks did not have time to plan a way to present the footage in any scripted manner; it didn’t matter if you were the anchorman of NBC or a stay-at-home mother watching the TV in her kitchen as she made her children breakfast. We were all faced with a crisis, and we were all able to see it unfold before our eyes – and that’s the kind of sensationalism that has impacted news coverage and shaped the way viewers react and commemorate certain events in the past 14 years.

Certainly the 9/11 attacks would still be a landmark event in American history, regardless if they had been caught on camera or not. However, the sensational – and horrifying — footage had so many immediate implications on the nation, both for the viewers and the media.

In the days after the attacks, David Westin, president of ABC News, ordered the the video not be repeated continuously so as not to disturb viewers, especially children. This type of decision raises the ethical question that journalists have been faced with time and time again, about where to draw the line in terms of how much we expose to the public. This applies to not only disturbing content, but content that threatens national security – which also became a major issue in the aftermath of 9/11, which I won’t get into here.

But where is that line? There is no definitive answer, but most would agree that even if coverage is shocking and violent, the viewer has the right to see it. In cases like 9/11, there really is no warning for such a catastrophe, and in live situations, there really is no opportunity for such a question to even be considered. In fact, in the past week or so, the nation has been abuzz about the live coverage of the shooting of two journalists by their former co-worker while broadcasting for WDBJ. The entire event was caught on camera and aired live without warning. And that coverage – that immediate visual access to the gruesome tragedy – completely changed the way the news was handled and perceived. The live video element of the story created a sensational wake following the incident that has sparked debate about the nation’s gun laws and other security issues. People are shot and killed every hour of the day throughout the world; but it was the live coverage of the event that made this one particular incident so sensational.

In this day and age, the landscape for journalism is constantly evolving with the developments of new technologies that give way to new platforms of communication. Video footage has been the leading form of journalism that has created lasting reaction in the past decades, and with technologies like smart phones and online platforms like social media, content has become immediately accessible to almost everyone. The footage of the 9/11 attacks that was recorded 14 years ago today is a landmark for broadcast journalism to show just how lasting the impact of visual news coverage can be.

Mr. Untouchable back at work

Posted on by

By COLIN DAVIS

Sept. 10, 2015, marked the start of the NFL regular season with a game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the New England Patriots.

As an avid football fan, this was music to my ears, but still something was unsettling.

The big story in the NFL offseason was the Deflategate scandal where the Patriots were accused of playing against the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC championship game with intentionally deflated footballs so that they would be easier to catch and throw. Most importantly however, Tom Brady was presumed to be aware of the cheating in some form or another.

Add this on to the growing list of suspect behavior for the Patriots in the last decade and suddenly there are questions that need to be answered.

Why does Tom Brady get a pass from the general public for his involvement in scandal after scandal?

Tom Brady is a great quarterback, arguably the greatest of all time. He is an inspiration for the underdog, a source of pride for kids being overlooked all across the country, but it is undeserved.

Brady has been involved in scandals throughout his storied career. Most recently and notably Spygate and Deflategate have demonstrated that the Patriots organization is about winning at all costs even if it means ruining the integrity of the game. Yet somehow, through all these scandals, Tom Brady remains unscathed. Still Brady is looked at as Mr. All-American, and still he is regarded as one of the best quarterbacks of all time.

Tom Brady goes to show that the American public loves a winner. The Boston Brady fanatics are some of the most loyal in the world, and as long as Brady keeps winning championships, he will always have a place in America’s heart.

‘Insta-famous’ offers major social capital

Posted on by

By MEREDITH SLOAN

According to CNN, Taylor Swift recently surpassed Kim Kardashian West as the most followed user on Instagram. Swift now has 45.9 million followers while Kardashian West trails behind with a mere 45.7 million followers.

Instagram, a mobile photo-sharing app, first began in 2010 and was acquired by Facebook in 2012.

In today’s increasingly visual society, social media popularity now correlates to social capital. This correlation gives celebrities the opportunity to give their fans access into their private lives to benefit their popularity.

Taylor Swift’s goofy personality shines through her Instagram. Her feed frequently features her cats, her notorious celebrity girl crew, and plenty of knit sweaters. Kardashian West, on the other hand, portrays a more glamorous image, featuring mostly an assortment of selfies and family photos.

Both celebrities have strategically created a brand that consumers are actively following. Companies are actively following too.

Online endorsements have become the ultimate marketing move for makeup brands, clothing brands, and even food brands. Celebrities are now serving as the middleman between the brands and the general public.

Since celebrities have an active online following that can be accessed immediately, it makes sense that their virtual popularity would correlate into real life.

Nowadays, social capital is tracked by number of followers and number of likes per photo on Instagram.

China puts military on display for media

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Sept. 3, Beijing’s Tiananmen Square was the spotlight of a lavish parade to commemorate Japan’s defeat in World War II 70 years ago.

There was no shortage of firepower on display, including upgraded machinery and previously unseen missiles. China’s growing military power is being keenly watched amid regional tensions. Unexpectedly, President Xi Jinping made an announcement in the beginning of the display that China would cut 300,000 troops from the 2.3 million-strong People’s Liberation Army.

This announcement went top on Chinese most popular searching engines. Chinese state-run newspaper invited analysts to explore more on this message President Xi delivered, and so did some western media who also asked think tanks to analyze what the action will actually bring about.

Personally, I think the cutting troops is a way to showcase that China’s determination of peaceful development though cutting troops is not necessarily translated into cutting military expenses. Especially in this high-tech era, military power has nothing to do with the total amount of soldiers. It is how advanced that technology applied to weaponry matters. Nevertheless, the announcement impressed the public that, at least, China is willing to be a peaceful developing country, rather than a threatening country purposely wage conflicts.

Besides, I think the message to cut troops can be treated as a signal to neighboring countries that keep having frictions with China over the last a few years. China always have several territory issues with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam. Sometimes the tension between China and these countries gets intense, even on the verge of war. The military parade indicated Chinese military power, and at the same time, troops’ cutting information showed that China has no intention to resort to wars to solve problems. The military parade and the troops’ cutting announcement combined, conveys an attitude that concessive in form, but aggressive in essence. That is, China owns the capability of solving problems depending on military power, but it voluntarily refuses to do that.

Freddie Gray: The $6.4 million question

Posted on by

By ELAYNA PAULK

The family of Freddie Gray, 24, a man who died of severe injuries in the back of a police van during transport in Baltimore, has been awarded $6.4 million in a wrongful death settlement.

That’s $6.4 million, just so Gray’s family and the city of Baltimore can just put the matter behind them, said the lawyer of Freddie Gray.

What isn’t being answered is what happened in the back of that police van. How is it possible for a handcuffed man, who sustained severe injuries after being arrested, to die of a traumatic head and back injury?

The city of Baltimore police department has a strict protocol to follow in regards to detainees. In fact, the police protocol specifically outlines safety restraints in transport vans, one of those being that the “detainee is secured with a seatbelt or restraining device.”

Unfortunately, questions like these regarding Freddie Gray will never have answers.

Currently, six of the officers that contributed to the death of Freddie Gray must stay in the city of Baltimore, after the defense failed to prove that the six arresting officers wouldn’t receive a fair trial.

As the mystery of Freddie Gray grows, it is imperative for the trial to determine whether or not the six arresting officers are guilty of murdering Freedie Gray, and if, in fact, the officers did kill Freddie Gray, the questions that should be answered are “how,” and “why.”

Brazil’s media morals — Facts vs. news

Posted on by

By ISABELLA MESQUITA

One of the greatest and most admirable roles of the news media is to unveil the truth and shine light on hidden and misrepresented facts. However, news media and journalists don’t always honor this role.

Many times what we call news is actually a warped story written on behalf of one’s economic, personal and social interests.

Born and raised in Brazil, I have seen this happen daily on television and other media outlets as the country undergoes a severe and aggravating political and economic crisis.

Amidst the rising wave of opposition against Brazil’s current government and its leader Dilma Rousseff, Rede Globo, the country’s main over-the-air broadcasting network, clearly took its side with the opposition.

Last month, Globo’s director Erick Bretas quoted singer Bob Marley, saying “Get up, stand up” on Facebook and Twitter in an attempt to encourage people to be a part of the uprisings in favor of the president’s impeachment.

In addition to that, Globo interrupted its transmission schedule and left almost 100 percent of its reporters on duty in order to bring about a greater attention to the outbreaks – an effort not seen in Globo’s coverage of other events of the same and/or greater magnitude.

Despite my beliefs that Dilma’s government is highly flawed, corrupt and is headed in the wrong direction, the way these events have been covered by the country’s main TV channel, as well as the statements posted on behalf of its staff have clearly shown bias and a lack of professionalism.

As a matter of fact, I do agree that the country is collapsing in Dilma’s hands, however her impeachment and any other uprising should never originate from the media or be manipulated by it.

Regardless of a specific economic, political and social scenario, media outlets should maintain their integrity and honor their role as informants, not opinion-makers.