Step for feminism, leap for womankind


Thanks to women in the media and the strength that their voices have on the public, 2015 has been a year of growth for female power.

It started with Beyoncé’s definition of feminism in her hit song, “Flawless,” and later led to the world listening to Emma Watson’s HeForShe project, and learning about Malala Yousafzai’s courage.

Key figures such as Amy Poehler, Hillary Clinton, Taylor Swift and even men like Joseph Gordon-Levitt have publicly declared themselves as feminists. However, announcing yourself as one does not nearly go as far as actually doing something about it.

Recently, Lena Dunham, writer of HBO’s series, Girls, has created the Lenny Letter. Dunham and her Girls’ writing partner, Jenni Konner, share an email-formatted newsletter that consists of interviews and topics of discussion on feminism.

Just last week, 25-year-old, Oscar winning, Jennifer Lawrence contributed to Lenny Letter by including her own blog post. She had come out in complaint that she was paid less than her male co-stars in American Hustle. She explained that while her male counterparts, like Bradley Cooper, had succeeded in negotiating powerful deals; she was worried to do the same because she was too focused on seeming nice.

She stated, “I found out how much less I was being paid than the lucky people with dicks, I didn’t get mad at Sony. I got mad at myself. I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early.”

Lawrence didn’t want to seem “difficult” or “spoiled,” like the qualities that are automatically given to women when they try to assert their opinion. She continued, “I would be lying if I didn’t say there was an element of wanting to be liked that influenced my decision to close the deal without a real fight.”

More feminist changes are taking place as celebrities in the public eye are publicizing what they are doing to lower female social constructions. The world is beginning to look a bit brighter, who knows, soon enough Congress might even pass a law to ensure that women and men doing the same work are paid equally.

Why the Chinese visit to UK matters?


Chinese President Xi Jinping, arrived on Monday for his first state to the United Kingdom.

In the following days, he will address the members of the Houses of Parliament, visit Imperial College London, meet with the Britain’s prime minister and, probably kick a football in Manchester.

From Xi’s visiting schedule, it is apparent to conclude that China is seeking to build, or strengthen its cooperation with UK on technology and business. On Wednesday, Xi will visit UK-China Business Summit at Mansion House, companied with David Cameron. Then he will also visit Chinese telecommunication company Huawei Technologies.  On Thursday, Xi is scheduling to participate in a global satellite communication.

China is also interested in British infrastructure projects. British government would offer a $3 trillion guarantee to secure the new Hinkley Point nuclear plant and Chinese investment towards it. China is also hopes to get involved in the HS2 high-speed rail project.

From my personal understanding, Xi’s sought for cooperation on business and technology with the Britain can be seen as a method to adjust Chinese economy, for the growth speed and the drive.

For ages, China is devoted to shift from an export-led economy to consumer and service-led one. Since China’s economic growth drops to 6.9 percent in the third quarter, the weakest rate since the global financial crisis, which is below the government’s 7 percent target, Chinese are faced with restructuring pressure because it is not easy to transfer from a world-manufacture to a technological leader.

In the past years, Xi imposed more restrictions on industries that produce pollution and enacted several polices to combat bureaucratic corruption, reshaping Chinese economic landscape by decreasing industry investment and reducing government manipulation.

The reform will take long time to upgrade Chinese economy structure and rebound it economic growth.

One woman’s journey


The New York Times is well known for great journalism and captivating stories. The Well Blog, linked to its website, provides fresh health-based content with one woman’s journey in particular.

While Suleika Jaouad is not a journalist, she now writes a documentation of her life for the NYTimes about her post-leukemia recovery journey. Her stories are linked together with a title, “Life, Interrupted,” before the subject of her next post.

Her posts began on May 2, 2013, up until her most recent post Oct. 15, 2015. At the age of 22, she was diagnosed with leukemia and describes her life as coming to a halt. After many months of chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant, she overcame the odds and began recovering.

She believes that this was due in part by her 100 day challenge. Her family created this challenge, in which each member would do something different for 100 days. Jaouad’s mother, for instance, began painting a picture everyday for 100 days which she would show to Jaouad. Her closed-off father wrote 100 childhood memories in a book for her. Jaouad began writing in her journal, no matter how irritated or tired she was, she made sure to write everyday for those 100 days.

After her recovery, she wanted to make something of the “halt” in her life. Thus, she is embarking on a journey across America to find herself with her dog, Oscar.

Her heart-warming story and journey brings a beautiful chain of first person blog posts that change the way journalism can affect others.

This kind of journalism entails a good story, and the sole writer to be a person of that story. Jaouad, while not a journalist, has painted a picture of her story for all of her readers and in that way, she has shed new light on feature writing.

Her reporting on her personal journey inspires others and informs them of what really happens during cancer treatment, and of the struggles of catching up with life after.

This kind of journalism provides an interesting story, but written in the actual person’s point of view, which gives readers a different perspective and would not be the same if done differently.

NBA champ Odom deserves respect


Lamar Odom is a two-time NBA champion. He was the sixth man of the year just four years ago. Currently, he is fighting for his life in a Nevada hospital and, although he is showing some positive signs, his outlook is not good.

There have been many reports on the Lamar Odom story by members from all walks of the media due to his relationship with Khloe Kardashian. Yet instead of referring to Lamar as an NBA champion, he is simply referred to as a reality television star as if he has only earned his celebrity through his interactions with the Kardashian family.

There have been very few media members that have given Lamar Odom the respect he has earned, and even less have done it as succinctly as Scott Van Pelt. After recently returning to SportsCenter, Scott Van Pelt did his minute and a half long segment, “One Big Thing” and assessed the situation through the lens of a sports fan.

While Scott Van Pelt makes a few jokes during his monologue, he makes a serious and simple point. Lamar Odom is more than just a plot line in a sad story; he has earned more respect than to be referred to as a Kardashian reality star, in such troubling times for Lamar Odom it is important to remember he was a star before he ever met Khloe.

For Lamar Odom’s sake!


Lamar Odom was and is an NBA champion twice (2009 and 2010) and was named the NBA Sixth Man of the Year in 2011. But, his name became even more popular after marrying Khloe Kardashian in 2009.

Unfortunately for Lamar’s family and friends, the athlete was found unconscious at a Nevada brothel on Tuesday due to cocaine and up to 10 tabs of sexual performance enhancer for the past three days.

You can actually find Lamar’s story all over the Internet as well as social media. I am not writing this to update on his status, or the latest news about his health, but to, at least, honor his hard work and accomplishments. See, I have seen his story several times on my Facebook news feed and, along his face, I see Khloe Kardashian’s face. Why?

Yes we get it, she was his wife, and she also flew to spend time with him until he wakes up from his coma, but why is the Kardashian family getting recognition or more attention than he should get? Is it me, or the only reason why Lamar is getting all this news media attention is because his name would always be linked to the Kardashian one?

I am not saying that the Kardashians don’t care, but all I see is Kylie and Kim K., tweeting and blogging about it, along with their famous “celfies.”

In honor to Lamar’s successful career, the one he worked really hard for it — without getting naked — you are appreciated Mr. Odom.


Raven-Symoné and “black names”


Last week, Raven-Symoné, co-host of “The View,” jumped into a conversation, which was based on a new study at UCLA about racial bias toward “black names.” Raven-Symoné said that she discriminates against people with “ghetto names” and won’t hire anymore with a name like “Watermelondrea” and news outlets immediately caught fire.

After seeing various news articles, some being CNN and the New York Daily News, I’m content with the amount of coverage and the lack of defending Raven-Symoné’s wrong behavior.

Raven-Symoné is an American, although she disregards her African ancestry, she identifies with a unit of people who are composed of various beautiful ethnicities. The thing that is so horrible about Raven-Symoné’s comments stems from a mindset that we, as a society, need to work towards opening.

By bringing attention to how wrong Raven’s actions were we can use this and learn from it.

Though, perhaps it would’ve been more beneficial for media outlets to take a stand against her behaviors, although that would make a “fair and balanced” news source bias.

Coverage of debate may sway voters


The first Democratic Debate took place this past Tuesday, hosted by CNN and sponsored by Facebook. The debate featured Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee. According to, more people watched NCIS (a popular TV Show on CBS) as opposed to the Democratic Debate Tuesday night, with 15.3 million total viewers.

Before, during, and after the debate, people took to various social media outlets to voice their thoughts and opinions of the debate. One of the dormitories on the University of Miami campus, Mahoney Residential College, held a watch party for the debate in the one of the faculty masters’ apartment.  Therefore, I did not have to turn to social media in order to receive live commentary from my peers.

We all watched the debate, laughed at its funny moments, clapped when were all in agreement with what one of the candidates had said, and groaned when in disagreement. In between commercial breaks we held quick discussions about our thoughts on the candidates so far.

At the end, we all had our own opinions of who to vote for as the democratic candidate. However, at no point during our discussion did we declare “winners” and “losers.” We all took what the candidates had to say at face value and decided whether or not we agreed with their values.

But the next day, I was bombarded by all major news networks declaring who they thought were the “winners” and “losers” of the debate. Of course in my mind (as well as most people), I had already determined who I thought best represented what I sought in a presidential candidate, but I was interested to see and hear what the news networks had to say.

As I read and watched several news stories from various news networks, it became clear that the person I thought did the “best” or “won” was not what the news thought. As I watched more coverage of the debate, I began to question my choice: Did I pick the best candidate? I began to second guess my decision wondering if I had made the right decision.

After speaking with several of my friends, a majority of them expressed the same sentiments. After watching the debate, they had an idea of who they wanted to potentially vote for. But after watching several news networks declare the same person as the “winner,” they began to doubt their choice as it was not in agreement with the majority of news organizations.

While I think that news organizations should report on the debates, I think they should do it objectively. Declaring “winners” and “losers” of a debate that was not designed to have a winner, can confuse and sway the public. Instead of selecting winners and losers, the news should highlight each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses during the debate, providing the public with unbiased information and enabling voters to make well-informed decisions.

The Democratic Debate did not have any winners or losers. Instead, the Democratic Debate showcased the strengths, weaknesses, values, and opinions of each candidate, and coverage of the debate should reflect that.

Odom found unconscious in brothel


NBA and reality star Lamar Odom was found unconscious at a brothel in Nevada on Wednesday.

According to CNN, Odom had been using cocaine. He was found was in bed at the Love Ranch brothel with a pinkish fluid coming from his mouth and nose.

Support for Odom has been flooding social media from fellow NBA peers including Vince Carter, Paul Pierce and Dwyane Wade.

The media has placed a strong focus on Odom’s condition and famous ex-spouse and reality star Khloe Kardashian, yet has failed to shed light on the fact that he was found in a brothel.

According to Wikipedia, Nevada is the only U.S. jurisdiction to allow some legal prostitution. The fact that Odom was found in a brothel is seemingly more controversial than the constant coverage of his ex-spouses’ family.

Since Odom’s current condition is critical, the focus of the media should cover why he was at the Love Ranch, how long he was at the Love Ranch and when he was planning on leaving the Love Ranch. There should also be a follow up feature story about the Love Ranch.

Prior to learning of Odom’s critical condition, I was unaware that prostitution was legal in the United States. I’m sure fellow media consumers are curious to learn more about the Love Ranch, as well as prostitution in Nevada.

The media should dig deeper into the details of Odom’s story rather than the current conditions and reactions from the Kardashian family.

The age of tragic selfie


Accompanied by the popularity of the social media, selfie photography is the most common way of showing one’s life to the world. People may see loads of them posted on Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms.

Recently, many people have become concerned about the safety issues involved in taking a selfie because there is a rising number of selfie-related fatalities. It was reported that two men in the Ural Mountains, Russia died of posing for a photo while pulled the pin from a hand grenade. Also in Russia, a university graduate fell to death after trying to take a selfie while hanging from a bridge.

A handful of other selfie-related death incidents have been reported from elsewhere in the world. In the U.S., recently a man died after shooting himself in the neck while taking a selfie.

According to a BBC news report, at least 12 people have died this year while taking pictures of themselves, making the practice more deadly than shark attacks, of which there recorded eight deaths in 2015.

It sounds striking to me that people would risk their lives of taking some pictures, in order to obtain a three-digit likes?

“The more extreme it is, the more likely you are to stand out and get lots of likes and comments”, said Jesse Fox, a researcher at Ohio State University. “The pictures that people post on social media can tell an interesting story about their personality.”

I think the ultimate goal of life is to living in reality and connect with real human beings. One may utilize internet to make up for some fulfillment that reality cannot provide. The fulfillment includes ideally living in a world free of anxiety and presenting an ideal self. People who put their lives on risk to take a selfies in order to woo their virtual friends apparently confuse which world should take priorities. Likes is not the measure in real life.

Media coverage on Flight 17 crash


The crash of Malaysia Flight 17 was caused by a missile warhead, according to the Dutch Safety Board’s report on Tuesday.

Flight MH17 crashed in Eastern Ukraine in July 2014. Everyone on board was dead. Distressingly, many aviation accidents and incidents took place in 2014. They range from the missing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 to Malaysia Flight 17, from Algerian Air Force C-130 crash to TransAsia Airways Flight 222.

News media produced much coverage of those aviation accidents. They were filled with stories analyzing the facts and evidence of the crash. However, many of them were reckless and speculations, because they jumped to all sorts of conclusion without any interviews or data to support their theory. Such analysis is nothing less than the weather issues,  man-made causes,  terrorist attacks,  or aircraft malfunction. It now appears that the interpretation of lost of the Malaysia Airlines MH 370 was absurd. Almost every media covered the cause which is the disintegration in the air. CNN dedicated 100 percent of its coverage to flight 370,  even inviting a psychologist to talk about the possible causes of the crash. Later CNN theorized on their network’s website involving the highly unlikely scenario that the plane landed on a remote island in the Indian Ocean.

U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is the world’s most professional air accident investigation agency, but it should takes several months or even several years for them to complete the analysis. Therefore, reporters can’t make their conclusions recklessly.

In fact, most of the press did not show its responsibilities and the respect for the victims and their families. On the contrary, journalists made a fuss, creating the tense atmosphere. Also, they accused and shirked responsibility, misguiding the emotions and views of the publics and gradually became a conspiracy theory and led to the political debate.

During the investigation, the news we heard about was Russia and Ukraine accusing each other of causing the incident. As the Dutch Safety Board’s report was released, another round of uproar was set off. Russian national television is questioning the report — it showed that Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov echoed these denials on Tuesday, calling the Dutch report an “obvious attempt to draw biased conclusions,” according to the country’s state-run news agencies. “Russian Today” television released a short video, displaying a test involved detonating a BUK missile near the nose of an aircraft similar to a Boeing 777. It seems that the truth remains a mystery, especially under the media hype.

The responsibility of the press is to debunk myths and rumors, not to opine on events and make speculation from sources for capturing eyeballs, enhancing ratings, and boosting advertising revenue.

A new perspective on the debates


CNN produced a virtual reality version of last Tuesday’s presidential debate telecast and succeeded at what many major media companies have been competing to do since Samsung’s GearVR technology came out.

Not only was this real-time streaming a milestone for CNN technologically speaking, it was also a wise marketing choice. Despite the record 980,000 online viewers, around 73 countries logged onto the VR live stream causing the debates on CNN to be ranked as the #10 cable program with the greatest audience – behind college football games on ESPN and the Fox debate last month.

For the new VR technology streaming, two cameras were installed near the questioners, allowing VR viewers to see how the candidates reacted to each other. Another camera was placed right behind the candidates’ podiums and a fourth camera was embedded in the seating area. With this, anyone with the VR app or the VR headsets had a priviledged 360-degree view of the debate.

According to DJ Roller, co-founder of Next VR and CNN’s partner for the live-stream,“You’d probably get attacked by the Secret Service if you tried to get as close as these cameras! With VR each and every viewer has a seat in the room and a new perspective on presidential debates.” 

Debate coverage boosts Clinton


On Tuesday night, the Democratic Party presidential candidate debates were in full swing. It was highly noticeable that news coverage was positively geared towards Hillary Clinton.

From CNN to NBC, all online news articles praised Clinton’s debate. CNN stated she was poised, passionate and in command. I find it interesting that all news organizations across the board, all agreed on something for once. Leading up to the debate all news organizations covered the debate on Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would come up on top as the top candidates.

One of the main topics that was discussed during the debate, and it has been a trending topic on social media, is Bernie Sanders comment “America is Tired of Clintons Damn Emails.” What was also interesting during this debate is that Donald Trump used social media to live Tweet his thoughts during the debate. I think that it is very interesting to have a candidate actually weight in on a debate, as it is occurring, and reaching out to the public. Trump actually praised Clinton and said she won the debate. It should be interesting to see how this positive reaction affects the rest of the race.

Twitter used to contact Oregon witness


Like the majority of the nation, I have been following the news about the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, which occurred yesterday at 10:40 a.m. and killed 10 people. One thing that came across my feed was an article about a girl who had been on campus when the shooting happened and tweeted, in live time, about the incident. The user @KP_KaylaMarie, a student at the school, tweeted: “Omg there’s someone shooting on campus.” at 10:41, followed by another tweet the minute after: “Students are running everywhere. Holy God.”

The power and immediacy of social media sites like Twitter have been revealed to all of us by now and we’re reminded of it in situations like these. What I found so incredible about the situation was that within minutes of her tweet, her timeline was flooded with incoming tweets from news reporters all over the nation, requesting information and interviews. She was approached, via Twitter, by reporters from ABC News, CNN, New York Daily News, Al Jazeera, and BBC News among others, all requesting phone interviews.

Of course every station wants to be up-to-date on the latest news and they all want their exclusives from eyewitnesses. It’s how the media works. But this girl was basically struggling to stay alive amid the chaos of a mass shooting, and meanwhile, all of these stations are blowing up her Twitter feed trying to secure their interview and up their ratings. Obviously I don’t blame the news media for wanting they information — it’s their job. However, I think there’s a time and a place to get it and it looks pretty insensitive in this scenario.

Another thing worth mentioning here is that it’s actually been proved time and time again that bringing a lot of media attention to senseless tragedies like shootings heavily influences future shooters. Adding that factor into this situation definitely makes me more frustrated with the news stations that approached the girl, because instead of taking into consideration the part they play in preventing future shootings, they’re desperate to get a hot lead on the one happening currently.

The situation in general frustrates me, because obviously the shooting was completely senseless with nothing good coming from it. It’s hard to sugar-coat any way of approaching witnesses when it’s about this type of incident, but it’s these situations that remind why so many people are resentful of the media and the manner in which they cover the news.

NASA did big favor for ‘The Martian’


NASA scientists held a news conference on Monday said they found the flowing water on the surface of Mars, making a significant breakthrough in searching for new life in the universe. However, with the vast news media attention, the news conference has been considered as a public relations blitz for the movie “The Martian” that opens in theaters nationally today and a chance to generate more money.

Three days prior to the news conference, NASA released a notice for the news conference on its official website, inviting the media and the public to participate. It was conventional when NASA was going to release a major scientific discovery and it would effectively become a spotlight.

During this time, the information was widely disseminated via the Internet and large-scale professional media coverage. The brief news conference notice of Mars grew into a spontaneous communication of science, all kinds of knowledge about Mars gathered around the Internet and the news media, arousing wide public concern.

NASA always attached great importance to the popularization of its work. NASA publicists build science website for each project, set up scientific periodical team, invited the public to participate in activities. It was interpreted as NASA was trying to allocate more money to Mars. President Obama said in 2010 that he would increase NASA spending by $6 billion over five years and finish designing a heavy-lift launch vehicle by 2015. But NASA’s current $18 billion annual budget is dispersed widely across scientific priorities, with the program receiving less than $500 million.

Another thing that was able to sustain public excitement was “Mars Mystery Solved” coordinated with the film “The Martian,” and the film is now in theaters. Although NASA has said it was a coincidence, it also was a stroke of immense fortune, given the vast media attention the discovery garnered just days within the opening of a film and the huge audience for the movie. People will be more aware of the agency’s plan to actually put people on Mars.

Not releasing shooters’ identity is wrong


The shooting that occurred at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon, was a complete tragedy. The shooting follows a string of multiple shootings that have occurred in the U.S. during the past few years. From the Sandy Hook shooting to the shooting at FSU, the U.S. has seen a startling uptake in mass shootings.

Some people argue that the cause of these mass shootings is lax gun control laws, while others believe the cause stems from the people who carry out these acts. Based on what I have seen, it appears as though most news organizations have taken the stance that while lax gun control laws play a role, the person is the main cause of these shootings.

Most news networks, including CNN, have taken the stance of not releasing the shooter’s name of the Oregon College shooting. According to CNN, the shooter “killed to be famous,” and they would not give him that during their broadcasts. The Douglas County sheriff has also taken the stance to not release the gunman’s name, not wanting to make him infamous.

With most of the past shootings, most news organizations have taken the route of not releasing the shooter’s name hoping it would discourage people from committing these acts in the hopes of gaining infamy from coverage of the tragedy. As we can see based on what happened in Oregon, this tactic does not seem be working.

I do not agree with the decision to not publicly release the shooter’s name. I think that people should be able to know who did this crime so we can try to figure out why this happened.

As more details of the shooting come out, we are learning that there were signs that this man suffered from some ideological and personal issues. I don’t think hiding the shooter’s identity will discourage these actions from taking place. I believe that, as a country, we have to come together and focus on what is causing people to commit these heinous actions. While more gun control laws are needed, I think we need to first focus on the people committing the murders and not the weapons used.

Shootings coverage should change


In the wake of yet another tragedy at the hands of a lunatic with a gun, news media are buzzing about the Oregon shooting at Umpqua Community College.

There are several pieces of news media coverage of the shooting that warrant further discussion. It is important for the news media to refrain from giving out the shooter’s name. While people are curious and want to get as much information regarding the incident as possible, it is better to make sure the shooter gets as little exposure as possible.

If there are other psychos debating whether to commit similar acts, doing it for the fame should not be a possibility. News media are beginning to do a better job at giving less attention to the shooter and many articles are written that do not have the name contained within.

The shooting gave rise to another topic in the news media that will have a tremendous impact on the Presidential race, which is gun control. According to the BBC, “There have been 294 mass shootings – defined as an incident in which four or more people are killed or injured by gun – so far in 2015, more than one per day.” Statistics like this are baffling for a developed country and whether or not guns will be outlawed; no rational person would say there wasn’t a problem with current legislation if this type of tragedy can occur so frequently.

The news media will continue to cover the shooting for the next few days, but the discussions about gun control will continue on until there is some type of change to the legislation because it is truly the laws that are allowing the shootings to occur.

Change of focus in shootings news?


While the news media are reporting on the horrific shooting at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, CNN covered the topic with a feature on the man who tried to save his class. The story is CNN’s main coverage linked to the shooting, posted on their websites front page, boldly titled “Oregon shooting hero tells gunman, ‘It’s my son’s birthday today’,” which gives a new view on handling stories of this nature.

A complement article by CNN interviewed Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin, who stated “I will not give him the credit he probably sought prior to this horrific and cowardly act. You will never hear me mention his name. We would encourage media to avoid using it, to not repeat it. We encourage you not to glorify and create sensationalism for him. He in no way deserves this. Focus your attention on the victims, on the families, helping them get through this difficult time.”

While I believe that the shooter’s name should be stated for investigative purposes, Sheriff Hanlin has a good point. Rather than emphasizing the shooter’s name, it was only mentioned once near the end of CNN’s article. Instead, CNN widely reported on the heroic actions of Chris Mintz, who took seven bullets trying to save his classmates. He held the door against the shooter who shot him three times until he gave in. Mintz then told the shooter “it’s my son’s birthday today,” which left the shooter unfazed and Mintz to take four more bullets. Despite these seven bullets, he survived and is expected to recover.

Since the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, nearly one school shooting has occurred per week according to a report from the Los Angeles Times. These astounding numbers show how an event can have a massive chain reaction. However, the news media’s new outlook brings hope. Since many school shooters’ motives include having their name known and their ideas spread to others like them, if their names are not emphasized, then they will not receive the infamous fame that they want. The news media should emphasize the heroes in these tragedies and what the victim’s families are doing to help.

Do the media know who is fighting ISIS?


Two days ago president Barack Obama sat down, after nearly two years, with Russian leader, Vladimir Putin. The encounter of both political icons was not just surprising to the world for the shared time, but for the topics they discussed. One of the main issues was the fight against ISIS.

President Barack Obama said that the fight was going to be a long-term campaign, but not impossible. He also affirmed that his supporters such as Iran and Russia will help through this. Even British minister David Cameron supported Obama’s thought and talked about the Islam.

However, Putin disagreed. He insisted that Syrian president Assad must stay in power. He believes that the world should help the Syrian government now more than ever, since they are the ones facing the battle face to face.

The news became the subject of the day until the next morning. Russia was reported firing missiles at a training camp in the north Syria.

So now, most people would be like isn’t the point to put a stop on the war on Syria?

Well, Russian warplanes bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, which puts Russian and Washington on opposing sides in the Middle East conflict.

Now the question is why does the media still focusing on just Obama and Putin sitting together and discussing about the fight against ISIS at the UN and White House? Why isn’t the media reporting about what is happening in the Syria right now and how Iran randomly is sending its troops to join the Syrian war?

These are the news that we need to hear, read and see, not just Obama sitting with the Putin and hear what he thinks we should do, instead of what are we doing.

Shootings: More coverage needed


We hear about a shooting on a college campus every few years. The reality of this act is that no matter where we are, we can be affected by the selfish decisions of someone else.

But what would help us find solutions to college shootings? The same news media coverage we get when a shooting happens.

When we brainstorm on a large scale, good things can happen. The coverage of these tragedies shouldn’t be in vein, we have the necessary tools to come up with solutions that will limit the amount of college shootings that happen around the United States.

At this point, it is far from an isolated incident. Statistics show that one-in-four campus police officers aren’t prepared to handle an active shooter on campus, which is a horrible. We need more coverage of solutions and so that we can stop talking about who got killed at what university and start discussing what we can do to prevent these occurrences.

If we considered the effects that this can do to bring a positive change, we as university students, can deter and reduce college shootings.

Joaquin’s trip up north


Hurricane Joaquin, a Category 4 storm, is expected to blow past South Florida and head directly towards North Carolina as well as the entire Northeast coast.

According to Fox News, governors of three states have already declared a state of emergency: Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Since Joaquin will not affect South Florida, is it really necessary to continue so much coverage by our local news outlets?

As a South Florida resident, this news comes as an initial relief. I am used to constantly checking for updates on various tropical storms and hurricanes beginning in August. Residents in the northeast will experience a shift in media over the course of the next few days.

As a northeast native, I am incredibly familiar with news media coverage about blizzards as well as the occasional thunderstorm. When a rare hurricane travels up the East Coast, a sense of panic shocks the population.

The news in the northeast will focus heavily on Joaquin, as well as preventative measures citizens can take to protect themselves. The general unfamiliarity with hurricanes will influence news stations to continuously track Joaquin on all media outlets.

In general, I’ve noticed that news media outlets in South Florida focus more on the logistics of the storm while news media outlines in the northeast focus more on preventative measures citizens should take. As the Hurricane progresses, it’ll be interesting to see if South Florida continues covering Joaquin.

South Florida may get hit with hurricanes more frequently than another other parts of the United States, but that does not mean local reporters should clog local media outlets with constant coverage about Joaquin.