What do we know about Bin Laden?

Posted on by

By ISABELLA MESQUITA

This week’s New York Times Magazine caused quite a stir among renown contemporary journalists. Jonathan Mahler’s cover “What do we really know about Osama Bin Laden” raised many questions about the circumstances involved in bin Laden’s death and the veracity of the “stories” told at that time by the CIA and the American Government.

In Mahler’s story, not only did he retell the story of bin Laden’s death from a different perspective, he also added Seymour Hersh’s point of view on what truly happened.

Mahler begins his article by narrating the series of events that took place at the The White House the day Obama announced bin Laden’s death. Within the first few paragraphs of his article, Mahler boldly contradicted the story told by the CIA regarding bin Laden’s whereabouts and addressed the story told by the White House as “another example of American mythmaking.”

“It’s not that the truth about bin Laden’s death is unknowable,” stated Mahler. “It’s that we don’t know it. We don’t know what happened more than a half-century ago, much less in 2011.”

According to Mahler, the CIA’s years of painstaking intelligence-gathering to find bin Laden’s hideaway was only a polished and flattering version of the truth. Based on Hersh’s previous publications mentioned in Mahler’s article, bin Laden’s location was revealed by a retired member of the Pakistani intelligence who received a $25 million reward for the information. Thus, in Mahler’s view, bin Laden was never actually “hiding,” and the false story told by the media successfully fooled the majority of not only Americans but anyone around the world who followed this noteworthy “event.”

Minutes after the article’s publication, journalists from The Washington Post, The Times and other newspapers fired up social media with criticism and their opinion about this controversial cover story.

While The Times‘ national security reporter Eric Schmitt believed the article “struck a nerve among national security and foreign policy reporters like a few he saw in his three-plus decades at the paper,” others like Jim O’Donnell of Tempe stated that “its the strangest article (he) has ever read in The Times; an extreme case of the story that asserts a wholly indefensible proposition by covering the heck out of a marginalized figure.”

Whether factually, morally or socially accurate, The New York Times must have had substantial reason and motive to bring back to life such delicate issue and to approach it with a rather radical and “conspiracy-based” theory that would naturally cause controversy.

As a matter of fact I believe The Times boldly refuted conformities and proved independence from any sort of institutional and/or governmental control through this article – an aspect of journalism that has been greatly questioned and debated in the 20th century.

Another campus shooting in the U.S.

Posted on by

By COLIN DAVIS

On Thursday, Oct. 22, a dice game being played on the outskirts of Tennessee State University resulted in one death, and three injured. As the dust settles from another campus shooting in the United States, it seems as if this article has been written before. President Obama will make his remarks about how the event was a tragedy and that no family should be put through such a traumatizing event.

According to the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, the shooting was the result of a dice game dispute, right outside Tennessee State University. The two individuals involved in the shooting were not enrolled at the university.

USA Today reports that a 19-year-old male student has died and three 18-year-old female students were injured by stray bullets. Gun control is such a highly debated topic and, as shootings like these continue to occur, those who are pro gun find their defense resting on constantly weakening ground.

One of the most depressing aspects of the shootings is that they are so frequent it is almost impossible to treat them with the respect and delicacy that such a situation requires. Instead, reports come through after a shooting and the common response is a defeated head shake and an understanding that the gun laws in the country must be changed.

According to the United Nations, out of the 11 countries in the world with a per capita GDP of more than $30,000 and a population of 20 million or more, the USA has more homicides by firearm per 100,000 population than the rest of the countries combined. With a rate of 3.2, the United States has more homicides by firearm than Italy (.7), Taiwan (.6), Canada (.5), Spain (.2), Germany (.2), Australia (.1), U.K. (.1), France (.1), South Korea (.03), and Japan (.01) put together.

The call has been made before and it will be made again, but changes are needed in this country, and the situation can only be ignored for so long.

Canada gets a ‘good-looking PM’

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

Justin Trudeau, 43-year-old political leader, makes his way to the stage at Liberal party headquarters in Montreal on Monday, Oct. 19, after winning the 42nd Canadian general election. As the elder son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau has a handsome looking and great enthusiasm is sports. He is called by foreign media as the “sexiest leader in the world.”

“Canada’s Good Looking PM” has become a heated discussion, and Justin Trudeau and his government even built a Chinese micro blog account for Chinese Internet users. It is one of the most searched topic in micro blogs and has more than 60.000 followers.

Justin Trudeau and his government updated their campaign and their election platform such as Justin Trudeau promised to respond to Canada’s economic slowdown by running modest deficits and building infrastructure. He has refused to raise Canada’s corporate tax rate. He has been noncommittal on the new trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and he has promised, vaguely, that Canada will have a more progressive climate change policy.

According to CBC News, messages of congratulations to Justin Trudeau are coming in from world leaders. Reuters reported Tuesday that The White House congratulated Trudeau on his win.

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi offered a warm welcome on Twitter, “Looking forward to seeing you at G20,” and other welcoming tweets came from India, Mexican Malaysia and The Maldives.

Although the Canadian media coverage says that the liberal win trends worldwide, many U.S. coverage may prefer to conclude that the winning of Justin Trudeau is “low expectation and high relief.” The victory denied a fourth term to Harper and his Conservative party, and people would like to see him clean up the mess at this term.

Chafee’s campaign comes to end

Posted on by

By CHARLOTTE MACKINNON

When I was going through the news this morning, I noticed that among the headlines regarding the primary race for the upcoming 2016 election was Lincoln Chafee’s announcement that he was ending his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Being that Chafee is the former governor of Rhode Island, my home state, I had been keeping up with his campaign since he announced his participation this past June. Since then, he hasn’t had an overwhelming amount of support behind him – Hillary Clinton has surely been stealing the spotlight lately, especially this past week where she did well in the debates and her competition, Virginia Senator Jim Webb as well as Vice President Joe Biden, both dropped out. The fact that he followed suit isn’t exactly groundbreaking news to many.

Regardless, seeing the announcement brought back a few memories of when he was actively governing my home state that made me think about all the pressures that politicians face when they constantly have the media watching their every move.

Chafee’s son, Caleb, was actually a high school classmate of mine when I attended Portsmouth Abbey School. He was in the graduating class above mine and we were good friends, as we both boarded on campus and it was a close-knit community. The week of his graduation, all the seniors ended their classes earlier than the rest of the students, and we had final exams while they were celebrating “grad week” – an annual week notorious for off-campus parties.

Caleb threw a party at his house while his parents were out of town and one girl who attended it ended up being hospitalized for alcohol poisoning. Everyone there was obviously under age, and the police inevitably got involved. Suffice to say, it stirred up a lot of publicity seeing as the party took place at the governor’s house and Rhode Island has a strict social host law which left Gov. Chafee responsible for the events that took place there. It was a bit of a local scandal in the weeks surrounding the incident.

Obviously what had happened was innocent enough, and there wasn’t that much damage done by the news media to Chafee’s reputation in the aftermath, but it did leave an impact on Caleb’s personal life (he ended up having to defer a year from Brown to do community service abroad in order to restore the University’s confidence in him as a freshman admit).

At the time, I didn’t really know much about the news media’s role in politics, but now that I’m a journalism major, it makes me more fully understand how critical that role is. Had the incident happened this past spring, Chafee may never have decided to even enter the race at all, considering it would have occurred in entirely different circumstances.

The incident would have been magnified under the lens of the news media and entire nation would have known about it — and it would have been used as a weapon against him by his competitors.  The things that occur to a person have an entirely different meaning when that person is a potential presidential candidate and it is the media that is single-handedly responsible for this fact.

Although the incident happened years ago and is water under the bridge at this point in time, especially since Chafee is no longer campaigning, it’s very interesting to me how I can look at the things that have happened in the past now with the eyes of a journalist, rather than just another on-looker.

Hillary emerges as victorious at hearing

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

If you checked major news networks online today, most of them displayed the following headlines:

ABC: “The ‘get Hillary’ committee did not get Hillary”

Politico: “Clinton Survives 11-hour Benghazi grilling”

Tribune: “11-hour grilling of Clinton reveals little new on Benghazi attacks”

USA Today: “No clear wins for GOP at Benghazi hearing”

Over the course of the past few months, Hillary Clinton has been questioned — and most people would say attacked — regarding the use of her personal email service in relation to the Benghazi attacks that took place in 2012 killing four people.

It seems as though Hillary Clinton has been questioned about the use of her private email server since the beginning of her campaign.

Hillary was questioned and provided testimony for more 11 hours yesterday, being questioned by a House Select Committee on Benghazi. Nearly all news organizations provided extensive and in-depth coverage of the meetings, with CNN providing hourly updates on their website and on live news.

Based on what I have seen, what is happening to Hillary Clinton is the political equivalent of a witch hunt during the Salem trials. Hillary Clinton has been questioned beyond the point of acceptability regarding this issue and each time, her response is the same and clear. The fact that the media has still continued to cover this issue in regards to Hillary Clinton is unbelievable, as well as the fact that this special committee was even created.

Comparatively, the news has covered Donald Trump in a similar fashion, but the coverage has only seemed to benefit him. However, with Hillary Clinton, the coverage of this issue is affecting her campaign.

Her numbers have gone down in the polls and her trustworthiness has been damaged and questioned by a large majority of the American public. However, there is hope for Hillary with this situation. As indicated by the news/article titles above, it is clear that most news networks believe that Hillary not only survived the 11-hour meeting, but that she has gained an ability to turn the tide and direction of the Benghazi story and her private email server.

As a young voter, I did question Hillary’s trustworthiness because of the coverage of the Benghazi “email scandal.” After completing my own research on the topic, my views have changed and I am proud that Hillary was able to not only successfully survive yesterday’s meeting, but that she may now be able to gain control over the situation and thus her campaign.

Why the Chinese visit to UK matters?

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

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.

NBA champ Odom deserves respect

Posted on by

By COLIN DAVIS

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.

Raven-Symoné and “black names”

Posted on by

By ELAYNA PAULK

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

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

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 Fortune.com, 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

Posted on by

By MEREDITH SLOAN

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

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

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

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

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

Posted on by

By ISABELLA MESQUITA

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.” 

Twitter used to contact Oregon witness

Posted on by

By CHARLOTTE MACKINNON

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’

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

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.

Shootings coverage should change

Posted on by

By COLIN DAVIS

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.

Shootings: More coverage needed

Posted on by

By ELAYNA PAULK

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

Posted on by

By MEREDITH SLOAN

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.

Journalists often face danger on the job

Posted on by

By ISABELLA MESQUITA

Journalism has always been a praised and honorable profession, but to what extent can it continue serving its purpose if it implies a life-threatening outcome to those who practice it?

According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, 1,055 journalists have been killed worldwide in the past 22 years and 80 have already been killed in 2015.

Many may think that this number is due to the risky situations journalists put themselves in, however figures compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists show that journalists and reporters are murdered because of their profession.

Also known as “Death Watch” journalists, they are deliberately targeted and murdered either because of their reporting or simply because they are journalists.

The most recent death happened in Virginia recently where a former WDBJ7 employee shot dead a reporter and a cameraman for WDBJ7, a local CBS affiliate, live on air. The shots could be heard on footage taken by the cameraman before he dropped to the ground.

However, what worsens the situation is that many of these murders outside the United States and other Western nations are investigated and in almost 90 percent of cases no one is prosecuted. In other words, impunity is increasing the risks of this profession and media freedom has been decreasing with every shot fired against a journalist and/or reporter.

Despite the agreement that holds each nation responsible to ensure their journalists’ safety and the protection of media freedom, clearly journalists haven’t been acting of safe ground and daily suffer with the “death watch” label.

Not only is this a matter of respect but also of the implementation of legal frameworks to create an environment where not only journalists but any one can practice their profession in peace.

Media consider mother-girlfriend issue

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

In China, there is a tricky question thrown ahead of men: If your mother and wife fell into waters simultaneously, whom would you save first? It is a question that often silents men, though they might whisper their answers in their minds, and generally they shun responding to that imagined situation and expressively criticize the evil nature of that hypothesis, arguing that the case that mother and wife fall into waters at the same time is non-existent.

These days, China’s national judicial examination seems to give an answer to this unanswerable question. In the exam, the question changes to “If forced to choose, would you save your mother or girlfriend from a burning building?” Exam takers are supposed, or duty-bound, to save their mothers. It would put a writer on charge of “crime of non-action” if he decided to prioritize his romantic love.

People voice their different opinions on this issue. Some say that equating the responsibility of supporting one’s parents with the obligation to rescue others in an emergency is ridiculous and there should be no privilege on life-saving because equality is what our society devoted to achieve.

While some people also expressed that they would definitely save mother because mother is peculiar and girls are everywhere.

I read the articles covering this issue from different international news agencies. Some ridicule the question as silly and unreasonable and others are making fun of it by saying “finally we have an answer, thanks to the law test.”

The perspective that impressed me most was from Celia Hatton of BBC News. She pointed out that “interestingly enough, no-one on the Chinese Internet appears to address the sexist nature of the question.” Her words actually threw a bomb in my mind, too. How can I simply ignore the fact that people are still unconsciously put females on a spot that they are helpless, fragile and waiting to be decided? Why is it always females in the context, to appear in a test which does not show much respect? Why do the public still play the roles of promoting gender stereotypes, rather than pointing out the unfair hypothesis here?

Should a woman save her father or her boyfriend first? It is something more than a joking question to ask ourselves.