Behind the ice-breaker meeting

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou shook hands ahead of an historic summit in Singapore last weekend. It is the first time since the Chinese Civil War ended and the nations split in 1949 that leaders from both sides have met.

Xi said the meeting “has opened a historic chapter in the cross-Strait relations, and history will remember today.” He also emphasized, “We (China and Taiwan) are one family.”

Relations between China and Taiwan have improved under Ma since he took office in 2008, with better economic ties, improving tourism links and a trade pack signed.

It is unfathomable why the meeting has taken place at this moment. From Ma’s side, there is a presidential election in Taiwan in January. Ma might take this meeting as an opportunity to give a boost to his party’s candidate, who is trailing in the polls. Also Ma built his presidency on his closer connection to China, so it is a good chance for him to meet Xi.

On Xi’s side, first, Xi wants to exert more of his political control over Taiwan. If he showed his favor in a certain party, in this case, the Nationalists, it might influence many Taiwanese voters’ decisions. If a Nationalists is elected as the upcoming president in Taiwan, it will maintain the policy of being close to China, which will be the ideal outcome for China.

We cannot foresee whether Xi’s meeting with Ma will boost the Nationalists or backfire. During the meeting, many Taiwanese protesters threw stones at the Taiwanese Parliament to demonstrate their anger on Ma’s intention of building a closer connection with China.

Interestingly enough, in Ma’s welcome address, he expressed his sincere hope for continually building peaceful and friendly relation between the strait.  Neither side put fingers on serious political conflicts and territory disputes. They both referred the other side as “sir” rather than his political titles. It is the first time ever in Chinese political reporting that no political titles were involved.

Missouri students vs. President Wolfe

By KATHERINE MOORE

Student and faculty protests have come to an end after University of Missouri’s President Timothy Wolfe resigned on Monday.

The school’s distress over how the president has responded to racist incidents on campus has caused Wolfe to step down. Protesters say there have been a series of bias events that the president did not take seriously.

For example, in early October, at the Homecoming Parade, Wolfe avoided the student group, Legion of Black Collegians. Activists say he was dismissive to them regarding the homecoming rehearsal, when a white man interrupted their meeting and used racial slurs. Later that month, another incident occurred, someone used human feces to create a swastika on a wall in one of the residence halls.

Recently, graduate student, Jonathan Butler, held a publicized hunger strike, saying that he would not eat until Wolfe was out of office. On Saturday the school’s football team, with the coach’s approval, announced that they refused to play until Jonathan Butler ended his hunger strike. The football boycott drew national attention, as forfeiting the team’s game would cost the university $1 million.

On Monday, amid escalating protests over the school’s racism and after the Missouri Students Association called for Wolfe’s removal, Wolfe resigned.

The Missouri athletic director, Mack Rhoades, and head football coach, Gary Pinkel, said that all football activities would resume Tuesday.

Click here for a timeline of University of Missouri’s protests.

An arduous Korea-Japan summit

By XIAO LYU

South Korea President Park Geun-hye and Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held the first high-level meeting in Seoul on Monday. The meeting was postponed for more than three years because of historical issues and territorial disputes between two nations.

Before this one-and-one-half hours meeting were the months of diplomatic negotiations. However, they produced no breakthrough. South Korean KBS reported that Korea-Japan summit mainly discussed the issue of so-called comfort women — tens of thousands of Korean and other Asian women sent to work at front-line brothels for Japan’s World War II military. Park asked Japan to give a sincerely apologize and compensate the comfort women before they left the world, while Abe claimed that all the problems from Japan’s often brutal colonization of Korea from 1910 to 1945 have been resolved in Treaty on Basic Relations Between Korean and Japan in 1965.

According to the Japanese reports, Abe told Japanese reporters that he agreed to try to find an “early solution” to the subject of comfort women. He said he did not want to “leave an obstacle for the future generations in building” relations with South Korea.

The news has triggered uproar among the social media in Japan and Korean. One of the interesting topics is the summit didn’t prepare a luncheon for Abe, so Abe and the Japanese ambassador went to eat barbecue in Seoul themselves.

Sankei Shimbun reports that, according to the shop, Abe ordered Korean beef tenderloin and spiced pork. The lunch also lasted one and a half hours and Abe finished all of his meal. Many Japanese netizens expressed their dissatisfaction with Park Geun-hye. They criticized Park Geun-hye, saying the leader had no common sense.

The meeting was a chance for both Park and Abe to save face, but both were in an awkward position. It is still unknown if the two countries can possibly reach a final agreement.

Censorship alive in the 21st century

By ISABELLA MESQUITA

“I don’t think there has been a worse time for freedom of expression in Spain since the death of Franco,” said Juan Pedro Velazquez-Gaztelu, former El País journalist.

Spanish newspapers and journalist have watched the industry restructure and shrink in the past years. As debts increase, Spain’s most established papers have lost their editorial independence and have watched advertising revenues decrease under the rule of a conservative government.

Known as the “gag law,” individuals who post videos of political protests or amateur videos of public officers will be severely penalized, and in the case of journalists or papers, fired or fined.

As government control increases and revenues decrease, freedom of expression in Spain has been questioned.

“Newspapers are no longer led by their editors, but by chief executives who are worried about accounts and trying to maintain good relationships with those in power,” said Pedro Ramirez, a journalist who was fired from El Mundo.

According to him, newspapers are no longer doing their job as watchdogs, and in turn are giving in to political pressure and editorial restriction.

To think that established journalists are being censored and kept from doing their job worried me. Not only because its what many of us in class aspire to do and become, but merely for the same of the news and truth.

As a matter of fact, our generation and modern society are defined by the fast flow of information, and highly educated and aware individuals — if not that, at least the easy access to news and information. Hence, how is it possible that in a first world country, journalists are being penalized for reporting the truth?

‘Offend America Again’ Trump on SNL

By ELAYNA PAULK

NBC is currently under fire for being the hosting network for “Saturday Night Live,” which has recently agreed to allow Donald Trump to be its most recent special guest.

Protesters argue that it is the values of Donald Trump that make his appearance on a comedy show “not funny” and “blatantly disrespectful”. American Actor, John Leguizamo has gone as far as boycotting the show and says that if Trump Hosts then “I won’t watch SNL anymore”.

“I’m all for freedom of speech, don’t get me wrong. I believe in freedom of speech,” Leguizamo said in a Yahoo News interview. “This is different … If he had said those things about any other ethnic group, he would not be on that SNL.”

Leguizamo continued, “I mean for him to go around saying that Mexican people are coming across the border are murders and rapists and all the horrible things he said is so dangerous,” Leguizamo said in the interview. “People have been hurt because of his words, because he incited. And he said, ‘well, my followers are very passionate,’ which is also his lack of sympathy and empathy is ridiculous.”

Media outlets such as ABC, Entertainment Weekly, Business Insider, and CNN Money have since reported the incident by remaining neutral. The issue remains though, if we keep using Donald Trump for comedic entertainment, can we trust him as a politician?

The media and the Mid-East conflict

By ANASTASIA MECHAN

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most easiest conflicts to explain, yet the most difficult to solve. It is a conflict that many people across the world are bored of because they do not understand it. So how are the news media helping this? How are the news media informing and educating the world about it? Through non-sense. That’s right.

I have seen different reports and documentaries about the Palestinians as well as the Israelis, yet if I wasn’t well informed and if I didn’t go to Israel, maybe I wouldn’t even care about it. I would think that this conflict has to do with the random hate Arabs have against Jews, or oil, or because of land, or simply because of terrorism. We are talking about the Middle East anyway ….

My point here is that the news media are doing, have been doing, is to rely on one side, attack one of the sides, which leads to the people to judge. Comments like “Jews are evil,” “The Palestinians are terrorists,” among others are the cruel result of these ridiculous, ignorant, and hatred reports.

It is true that time on television is limited. But it is also true that a news reporter must do his/her job to inform people in seconds. I mean, what else do they go to school for? To learn and do the job right? But maybe it is not the reporter’s fault. Perhaps, maybe the news media need ratings, they need to catch the attention of thousands of viewers, they need controversy and drama in order to keep running the show and that’s why sometimes they need to misinform and brainwash minds of audience members in order to make them dependent and seek more information.

This is how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is happening throughout the news media: “Cut what is boring even if it’s accurate, make one side look bad — we need the ratings.”

We need to hear her story

By BRITTANY CHANDANI

The news media have a strong voice in publicizing atrocities and bringing awareness in order to end them. Recently, a woman was stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery in Afghanistan.

Nineteen-year-old Rokhshana was forced into an arranged marriage. Soon after, she fled her home with another man. They were caught after two days in Ghor, an Afghani province, which is controlled by the Taliban.

Rokhshana was captured by the Taliban and ordered to death by stoning. There was video footage taken on a cell phone, which then circulated on social media. The video shows Rokhshana in a dugout, with many men surrounding her and throwing stones. The grotesque scene is coupled with Rokhshana’s cacophonous cries.

A female governor in Afghanistan, Joyenda, claimed that there is not much that she can do but ask President Ashraf Ghani for more reinforcements and safety. Since the Taliban controls the province where the attack occurred, nothing else was done.

Stoning is a horrific and uncivilized punishment that is too common in Third World countries. The lack of decency towards women is also all too common. When the news media share stories like that of Rokhshana’s, it brings awareness that this violence needs to come to an end. A few months ago, another woman was a victim of a brutal beating by a group of men who set her body ablaze before throwing her into a river. This violence should not be tolerated in any culture or for any reason.

This article gives Rokhshana, and all of the other women who are victims of violence, a voice around the world. The power of social media and technology allowed us to see Rokhshana’s horrendous ending, which can bring her eventual justice. Sharing this video united many people to stand against this and become more aware of violence towards women.

If these stories went unpublished, no one would know what was happening around the world, nor the vast need for progress and cries for help. The fight for women’s rights in Asia can only be won by a larger force of many people.

Little respect for small-market Raptors

By COLIN DAVIS

The Toronto Raptors and Golden State Warriors are the only two undefeated teams left in the NBA.

Truly at a unique place, the NBA has seen many small market teams see time in front of the national media. Everyone is familiar with Stephen Curry’s amazing shooting ability, how loud the Bay Area gets during their home games, so why then, as the only team representing all of Canada, can the Toronto Raptors still not get the attention they deserve?

On the home page of NBA.com there is one article mentioning the Raptors surprise success, and even then there is no mention of the Raptors in their top 10 stories. Coming off a great win against the championship contending Oklahoma City Thunder, one would think that the Raptors were finally going to get some attention. Yet the video highlights of the game primarily showed Thunder highlights with a few Raptors plays mixed in.

It is understandable that the majority of fans would rather hear about Kobe Bryant’s shooting woes than the stellar play of a team located in Toronto, but in today’s day and age of media being the ever present force it is, the coverage should not be so slanted.

Ultimately, the NBA is entertainment and wants to make money over all else, providing content that the majority of viewers want. In a perfect world, the teams playing the best get covered the most, but the current system does not look to be changing any time soon.

Instagram star quits social media

BY MEREDITH SLOAN

Australian model and Instagram star Essena O’Neill announced she was quitting social media this week via YouTube.

According to ABC News, O’Neill, who had more than 700,00 followers on Instagram and 260,000 subscribers on YouTube, posted a shocking confession announcing that social media made her “miserable” and that online and mobile-sharing platforms can be unhealthy. She decided that she wanted to shut down all of her accounts.

 

According to CNN, O’Neill’s social media friends Nina and Randa Nelson published a YouTube video alleging she was doing this as a stunt to get more followers.

All social media platforms have been exploding with both support and opposition for O’Neill’s stance. This debate has been a hot topic for news organizations alike.

 

I support O’Neill’s stance because her issue with social media is situational. She said that she didn’t like how the pressure to be perfect influenced her mental health. She also said that she wanted to set a good example for her younger sister and show her that she doesn’t have to be perfect and likeable online to be happy.

 

I do think that social media outlets are informative and necessary in this day and age for the spreading of information. Although, I don’t think that personal business accounts like O’Neill that promote unrealistic body images and clothing brands are necessary.

Carson: Fact-checking or dirt digging?

By BRIANA SCOTT

Despite Ben Carson’s quiet and often soft-spoken demeanor, according to his book “Gifted Hands,” he had a troubled and violent childhood growing up in the city of Detroit.

Recently several news organizations, including CNN, have begun “digging up dirt” on the Republican candidate, with Carson’s claim of a rough childhood at the center of the coverage.

As candidates are running for the highest and most powerful position in the United States and perhaps the world, it is expected that old skeletons will be hunted down and taken out of the candidates’ closets. But is there a point of going too far?

Despite Carson’s public claims of his troubled childhood, as well as those mentioned in his book, CNN has assigned a journalist to investigate Carson’s claims and has reached out to past neighbors and childhood friends of Carson in the hopes of either validating or invalidating Carson’s story.

Carson has often spoken about a particular incident during his childhood in which he tried to stab a friend with a knife over a disagreement about a radio.  The journalist assigned to investigate Carson’s story has been researching the candidate in regards to his claims for the past month and CNN has asked Carson to aid the network in finding witnesses who saw the stabbing attempt as well as the victim of the attack.

Carson has declined to provide CNN with these names and for some news reporters Carson’s unwillingness to help raises further suspicion of whether or not his claims of his childhood are true. Perhaps Carson is not willing to provide the names of witnesses or the victim of his attack, not to hide the truth, but to protect the lives and privacy of those involved.

Every candidate running for president has had their lives turned upside down and scrutinized from what they wear to what they wrote in their high school newspaper 30 years ago. I think Carson is making the right decision not to provide CNN with the names of witnesses or the victim to protect them from the harsh and often unforgiving spotlight of public opinion and news media.

Carson is not alone when it comes to news networks “digging up dirt” and publicly scrutinizing his past. Recently, several news organizations, in addition to Donald Trump, have called out Marco Rubio for his personal use of a credit card that was only to be used for political purposes relating to the Republican Party. CNN has went as far as to list out the date, location, and exact dollar amounts used for personal use.

I do think that this information is pertinent for the American public to be aware of as it pertains to Rubio’s misuse of a professionally provided credit card. However, as illustrated with Ben Carson, I do think that sometimes the media can cross the line between fact-checking and digging for dirt.

Instagram star talks about social media

By SAMANTHA COHEN

This past weekend Australian Instagram star Essena O’Neill garnered a lot of attention after speaking out against social media

Her Instagram “fame” of more than 700,000 followers and YouTube channel of over 200,000 followers showed an inside look of her healthy vegan lifestyle and fitness advice.

She abruptly changed her Instagram name to “Social Media is Not Real Life” and deleted multiple photos replacing them with rewritten captions. She revealed the enormous amount of work and effort that goes into creating an image of her-self that in reality is not real.

I admire what O’Neill has done and her message is highly important in today’s society where social media are everything to millennials. I feel that this will allow the image of what looks like to be a perfect and ideal life, will show that things are not as perfect as they seem.

With female body image issues at an all time high this admission will show that no one is perfect. For example, O’Neill was particularly frank about her attempts to change the way her body looked in her photos re-captioning a bikini picture with “A 15-year-old-girl that calorie restricts and excessively exercises.”

O’Neill has been able to take the social media platform she has and put it towards social awareness.  Societal culture today promotes media and the fame that comes along with it, as being the ultimate accomplishment, by creating an illusion to an idea of a filtered life.

O’Neill says that everything she was doing was edited and contrived.

Numerous news media organizations from The New York Times to Teen Vogue to Yahoo each covered this story, which has truly become a major eye opener into the life of social media celebrities. I feel that this has really been the first time someone as shared what its really like. As someone who is a social media user, I find it highly interesting that what I see on Instagram might not be what it seems.

When you can have two

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Last Thursday, China lifted its one child policy that had applied to this country for three decades. Now, couples can choose to have a second child without fear for various punishments including fines and getting fired.

Loosening a previously tight policy for population control has attracted worldwide attention. The UK’s BBC ran a topic section for consecutive days focusing on termination of the one-child policy that tries to interpret the reason why government ceased this decades-long policy. The New York Times also writes about Chinese new policy change and how this policy had demographically shaped China.

The policy change also triggered heated debate within China. Some people argue that banning the one child policy foreshadows Chinese government’s failure of re-structuring its economic development mode. For decades, the Chinese government has devoted effort to reconstructing the Chinese economy from labor-driven to technology and service driven. Recently, the Chinese economy has slowed and many people attribute the sluggish economy to the scarcity of cheap labor.

Others point out that, though families can choose to have a second child, there are still some barriers preventing unmarried women to have their own children. Some articles even cite some important data to demonstrate that, even couples which have the choice to have a second child, a very small percentage of them will actually give birth to another child due to mounting pressure to raise a child because child birth and rearing require tremendous time and money commitments.

I think the new policy will bring some changes to China. At least for coming years, it will not be rare to see a child who has a sibling. Nevertheless, the change will slight, but not tremendously elevate the total amount of Chinese population. Nowadays more and more people are prioritizing quality over quantity.  If parents have fewer kids, they can better apply their limited money and time to cultivate their children and have some spare time to enjoy their own life, rather than strain their energy to feed many mouths and merely make ends meet.

China ends one-child policy

By KATHERINE MOORE

After 35 years, China’s imposed policy for married couples to have only one child ended on Thursday, Oct. 29.

The decision followed a four-day Community Party summit in Beijing. China’s top leaders debated the fear of an aging population jeopardizing China’s economy. The country’s state-run news agency, Xinhua, announced that all married couples are allowed to have two children.

In the past there were some exemptions to the rule. Since 2013, China’s family planning laws allowed minority ethnic families and rural couples whose firstborn was a girl to have another child. In January 2014, China even allowed couples to have a second child if one of the parents was an only child. However, when the policy didn’t work, there were forced sterilizations, heavy fines, sex-selective abortions and infanticide. While the effort to limit family size resulted in a skewed sex ratio, China said the law had prevented 400 million births.

The increase of the child quota is unlikely to re-balance China’s aging population. Demographers predict that by 2050, 25 percent of China’s population will be over 65 and by 2040 there will be a 1.6-to-1 worker-to-retiree ratio. Many Beijing citizens express reluctance and indifference to the policy because couples in urban areas feel it is too expensive or too much trouble to have another child.

Although the new policy is a liberation of the three-decade-old restriction, fewer people than expected will be expanding their family. What will China do next to stop the aging population?