Crackdown on China’s journalists

By GABRIELLA CANAL

Journalism is a scary field of work — there’s no doubt. The beheadings, the war zones, the crossfire, these are all frightening aspects I’ve discussed before. But it’s been a while since I’ve thought about what journalism is in other countries. Learning how to become a journalist in the United States has made me blissfully unaware of the fact that media control is still prevalent today — and just as scary as other aspects of the job.

China is currently facing stricter laws in news media control, forcing some journalists to go underground. Before the days of the open-door policy, China’s ignorance was a blessing and a curse. Nowadays, with access to social media and essentially foreign news and controversies, leaders are yearning to go back to the way it once was.

The recent protests taking up the front pages of every notable newspaper are about China’s imposing limits on voting reforms in Hong Kong. This summer, China began imposing strict regulations on what journalists can and cannot post on social media in an attempt to isolate domestic media from the rest of the world. The latter is most concerning.

A journalist for the monthly magazine, China Fortune, was forced to quit when he violated the government’s new rule by writing commentaries for Orient, a Hong Kong-based news website. His name was Song Zhibiao. Previously, he was forced to resign from an affiliated newspaper when he questioned the government for the 70,000 people who died in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Song criticized the government’s construction of school buildings that may have been the cause for so many children’s deaths and was booted from Southern Metropolis Daily.

Song is not the only one. There are countless other cases that the Committee to Protect Journalists are fighting for (the link provides these outrageous cases: http://cpj.org/asia/china/). And where is the rest of the world’s media standing on this issue? China, a leading state in today’s world, is cracking down on its journalists. In a time where they most need representation, the rest of the world’s media does not properly cover the issue. Journalism, as a way of expression, needs to be protected — no matter the place or time.

So what do we know? The Chinese government fears public opinion. They are successfully trading freedom of expression for control of information. And for a job so heavily dependent on the ability to communicate and criticize openly, I just wonder when the role of the journalist will be null, when the jail cells will be filled with those who’ve been silenced, and most importantly, when the media will say enough is enough.

Ebola scare hits close to home

By MEAGHAN McCLURE

As with any troubling issue, it only really starts to shake you once it hits close to home. This was definitely the case with the Ebola coverage in the news media lately.

Ebola had always had a constant presence in the news media – about the outbreaks in Liberia and other faraway African countries, but it was always one of those news stories on the back-burner. The status of the virus was constantly updated, and although it was always concerning, it was never a major concern for the average American.

However, with the first U.S. case reported in Dallas, news coverage is definitely now telling a different story.

All the major news outlets, like CNN for example, have multiple articles about the deadly spreading of the virus on the front pages and home sites. Once we as the public heard about the Dallas case, there were then talks about other possible cases in the Miami airport and in Washington, D.C.

Now, instead of just hearing how the Ebola virus was affecting different countries in a very general way, we are learning about the victims of Ebola, possible Ebola cases, what the virus is, how it spreads, and so forth. Once the first U.S. case bell was rung, the media jumped on the case, making Ebola possibly one of the most news media-covered stories today.

This just shows how one incident, like the Dallas case, can change how the news media covers a certain topic to accommodate and generate public interest. It also shows the closer a story hits home, the more interest the story will have.

9/11 Memorial fire coverage varies

By SHAWNA KHALAFI

A fire at the Flight 93 National Memorial destroyed three buildings on Friday.

It was really interesting to see how different news outlets handled this event. On most news Web sites, including AOL and Fox, the journalists tried to focus on the positive aspects of the situation. They mentioned that the visitor center and memorial, which are under construction, are two miles away and were untouched by the fire and that nobody was injured.

They also made sure to mention that although about 10 percent of the memorial’s archival collection was there, many objects were in fireproof cases. I think this is a good approach because the memory of 9/11 is still so fragile to many readers.

However, I found it troubling that some of the stories were very vague about what was missing. For example, the Congressional Gold Medal awarded to the memorial last month, has still not been found. There were numerous quotes stating that officials can’t access the storage area until it is cleared by fire officials. The manner in which some of these stories were written was somewhat questionable because it gives readers false hope that they might uncover the medal and other memorabilia.

Leave climate change to the experts

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

Being fair and balanced is a dogma of journalism. But in an attempt to offer balanced reporting, journalists may in fact introduce inaccuracy and deception.

There is a consensus amongst scientists about climate change. According to climate.nasa.gov, 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming trends are the result of human activity.

If journalists feel they must have balance in their stories, who does that leave them to turn to for the opposition? Well, not scientists.

Quoting politicians on the scientific evidence surrounding climate change is committing the fallacy of inappropriate expertise. Rick Santorum remarked that scientific evidence cannot even withstand common sense, sarcastically saying, “man-made carbon dioxide — a gas that humans exhale and plants need to live, a gas that represents less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere — is a dangerous pollutant threatening to overheat the world.”

The truth is that although in terms of percentages the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small, it is very potent and even trace amounts can have disastrous effects.

So let’s leave it to the experts. We wouldn’t ask Albert Einstein for commentary on comparative politics, would we?

It is completely acceptable to consult and quote politicians on policy issues and economic issues surrounding global warming. But our discussions with them should stop there.

Media learn to cover marijuana culture

By SHIVANI ALURU

Marijuana, long considered a shameful indulgence reserved for teenagers and overgrown slackers, is going through a profound re-branding process in Colorado. Smokers, rather than being hidden in smoky, black lit basements, are experiencing new life as weed culture becomes the new, trendy frontier in food, fashion and fun.

In the food realm, rumors of secret tasting menus laced with different types of marijuana have set much of the foodie set into a frenzy, with many trying to get invited to back door dinner parties at some of Denver and Boulder’s restaurants, both fine and common.

Similarly, hemp fashion is making its way back in nearly everyone’s wardrobe. Some items are hyper-cool like the woven, Moroccan inspired belts found in the windows of Pearl Street boutiques while others, like t-shirts, are so basic and innocuous, it’s hard to believe they found their origin in a drug.

The easy transition from illegal marijuana to legal recreational marijuana owes a surprising amount of credit to the work of journalists and opinion writers in Colorado and beyond. From High Times in the 1970s to the New York Times editorial board now, the news media have been vocal with their opinions on legalization.

On Oct. 1 the Denver Post closed the application for a weed-based sex and intimacy columnist for The Cannabist, the Denver Post’s marijuana themed site. This push by a mainstream media outlet to incorporate a subculture with a long history is more evidence of journalism’s power. It’s simple to argue that the establishment of The Cannabist will likely inform and educate a demographic previously untouched by the marijuana debate and even soothe those who were staunchly opposed to any and all legalization.

The discussion bears mention simply because of journalism’s power to spin counter and sub cultures into the mainstream. When Rolling Stone’s first issue hit the stands in 1964, its mission was deeply entrenched in the hippie counterculture but every story was written using traditional journalistic principles. Currently, despite its against the tide origins, Rolling Stone has become the most mainstream magazine for both music and political commentary.

It’s the inverse of the relationship between news and social media. Rather than reporters pulling hot topics from the people, the people pull the things they want to talk about from the new. It’s proof that journalism can still propel discussion on its own.

Interactive storytelling, our future

By DOMENICA A. LEONE

Journalism is certainly an industry that is suffering. Not that it will disappear, but the print field is pretty much condemned with a possible execution date. It is interesting how the evolution of the field has paralleled the transformation of society and the modernization of the different technologies. Thus, with the passage of time, it hasn’t been surprising that the industry and its professionals have had to adapt in order to deliver and enhance the value of the product they have to offer.

The New York Times has been extremely successful in doing so. After transitioning to the digital platform as many other newspapers have done as its plan B, the NYT had yet another plan A under its sleeve. The company was clever enough to take advantage of not only the technologies available, but the tools and opportunities the platform had to offer like no one else before. It embarked on a project, which ended up being an overwhelming success, thus changing the way of telling stories and challenging other media enterprises by setting a high standard to look up to.

image[2]“Snowfall” was released in December 2012 and it brought with it everlasting reviews hailing the piece as the future of journalism.

Based on the story of group of skiers and snowboarders trapped beneath an avalanche in Washington state’s Cascade Mountains; the piece is formatted in the form of an eye-popping multimedia feature.  At its peak, reportedly as many as 22,000 users visited “Snow Fall” at the same time. It also received around 2.9 million visits for more than 3.5 million page views.

Unlike a standard online article, which doesn’t diverge much from the original print layout, Snow Fall, a multi-chapter series by features reporter John Branch, it’s a visual feast, which integrates video, photos and graphics in a logical and almost effortless manner.

Screen shot 2014-10-03 at 10.55.08 AMAs you scroll through the various sections of the content you don’t get the feeling that the mix of elements are just tacked on.

The media elements are well planned and placed, embedded in a redundant fashion reinforcing the written statements and even developing further on the facts.

Future or not, it sure turned out to be successful. And people can’t get enough of it.

A few months later, The Washington Post, refusing to be outdone, made ​​his own version of “Snow Fall” with “Cycling’s Road Forward” — a media report of similar characteristics, which featured a young rider named Joe Dombrowski. As with the NYT skiers, Dombrowski’s story surprised by the use of unconventional tools that worked for embellishment and support on the retelling of the events. For example, The Post detailed one of Dombrowski’s training rides near Nice, France, using satellite imagery and explored his ride out of Lance Armstrong’s shadow.

Ebola: America’s scariest word

By AUTUMN ROBERTSON

The Ebola scare has gotten worse than ever and the news media are only adding lumber to the fire.

Saying the word ‘Ebola” around a large group of people might as well be the same as someone saying “Bomb!” in a movie theater. That word evokes so much fear among American citizens more than ever due to the recent discovery of Americans who have recently contacted the disease.

And what’s the news media’s role in this? They find every story about someone who has contacted the disease, write a story highlighting the name of the person, the area that they are from, how many people that they may have become in contact with, and continue to scare people.

People argue that the reporters are just doing their job, but I beg to differ. The news media’s job isn’t to scare people, but to inform people on what the disease is and how they can actually contact it.

As the number of affected Americans continue to rise, more federal health organizations continue to release information on how the disease is spread because large media groups fail to include how getting Ebola can actually happen.

This goes back to a common tactic that journalists use to get readership: sensationalism. If journalists think that more people will be interested in reading about a certain issue, they will amplify the story to get more readership. People love to stay informed, but the easiest way to draw in an audience that wants information is to scare them a little, so they can keep coming back for more.

Today, reporters announced that an Ebola patient is being contained at a hospital on the campus of Howard University in Washington, D.C. I know many students that attend Howard, including my sister. Not only is she scared and worried about contacting the disease, her fellow classmates are feeling the same way.

The media failed to include information to these students on why the person is being contained and the safety precautions that the school will be taking to keep the students safe. The media dropped the news like a bomb and people are scattering around for information.

That is not very fair of the news media, which have a platform that they should use to inform rather than to scare. They should focus on creating more material used to help people than creating a scandalous story.

Biased journalism blames the victim

By LINDSAY THOMPSON

By now, most people have heard about the case of missing University of Virginia student Hannah Graham. Around 1 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 13, she texted friends saying she was lost. That was the last anyone has heard from her since that day.

Police are still trying to figure out exactly what happened to Hannah and where she is. In just the past few days, they have found a person of interest who is currently in custody.

All of that information can be found by just Googling Hannah’s name. What you will also find when you search for her are articles with titles like, “Missing student Hannah Graham was so drunk she could barely walk, says owner of bar where she was last seen – as man accused of her kidnap appears in court” (http://dailym.ai/1sRprF8).

A journalist’s job is to report the news in an unbiased way and giving articles titles such as the one previously listed is anything but unbiased. That title almost shifts the blame onto Hannah. It makes it easier to think “Well, it’s her fault for not being more careful,” when that’s just not the case.

People can come to their own assumptions about her life, but that is not the job of the media. Hannah very well may have been extremely drunk, and there is nothing wrong with articles stating that she had been out that night (because that’s the truth and is part of the story).

However, making that the whole subject of the article detracts from the fact that she is still missing, and they may have found the man who kidnapped her – which is really what’s important.

It’s not the news media’s job to judge her life choices. It’s their job to clearly report what’s happening.

Professionalism (or lack thereof) in Miami

By KACIE NELSON

What is the job of a broadcast news anchor? I think we all agree that it is to entertain but, most importantly, it is to inform the rest of us about the most recent and relevant events occurring in the world everyday.

Here’s the problem. Miami’s news station, Channel 10, has completely lost the balance of informing while entertaining, and thus in my opinion has lost any reputability.

As I watched the newscast this evening, the first things that struck me were the female news anchors’ outfits. One of them was wearing an almost-too-tight, bright purple dress during her report. I was a bit put off, but let it slide.

Next they showed another female reporter and her outfit, in my humble opinion, was inexcusable! She wore a bright pink, tight skirt with a black sleeveless top, made of lace.

What?!

When did it become okay to throw out the rule of dressing professionally to your workplace just because we live in Miami? As far as I’m concerned, it’s not okay. If I am expected to listen to the news that you are reporting, it would be nice to not be distracted by your inappropriate outfit.

Furthermore, the writing behind the newscasts and the stories were just sub-par at best. Multiple times the reporters used slang terms or reported their story in such a gossip-y way that it made it seem invalid.

For example, during one story about the manager of the Miami club that recently had a shooting that resulted in many injured minors, the reporter explained that their camera crew went to her Miami home and “knocked on the door but no one answered.”

They proceeded to show the reporter knocking on the front door of a residence and receiving no answer.

Then they explained that when they finally did find the manager and asked her questions, “All they got were dirty looks” and proceeded to show the owner giving the camera dirty looks. They showed this clip roughly seven times.

It was clear that there was no substance to their story, but for lack of other content they proceeded to run it. This is just not acceptable.

My concern with Channel 10 news is that people watch it to be informed about current events and not to see cute clubbing outfits on the anchors and reporters. And not to see poor quality news stories.

Drag queens more visible in today’s culture

By XUANCHEN FAN

A drag queen is a man who dresses like a woman. The purpose of dragging is a self-expression, performance and entertainment. Years ago, people regarded this as a sort of perverted behavior. However, nowadays, drag queens have become a non-mainstream culture.

There are many drag artists in different fields and they vary greatly in dedication, from professionals in movies to people who just try it once. Drag queens also vary by class and culture and even vary within the same country.

While drag is very much associated with gay men and gay culture, many artists are famous for being a drag queen. RuPaul Andre Charles is the one of the most representative drag queen artists.

RuPaul is noted among drag queens for his indifference toward the gender-specific pronouns used, like he said: “You can call me he. You can call me she. You can call me Regis and Kathie Lee; I don’t care! Just as long as you call me.”

RuPaul also joined in an American reality competition television series –– RuPaul’s Drag Race. He plays the roles of host, mentor and source of inspiration for this series.

All contestants for the show must be 21 years of age or older. They may have any sexual orientation, although most contestants to date have been gay men.

David Bowie is the most representative drag queen musician. He is known for his distinctive voice as well as the intellectual depth and eclecticism of his work. In his music video, he always dress like a woman to present a different inner part of himself.

Even in China’s famed Peking opera, there is a Dan character similar to a drag queen. Peking opera is a form of traditional Chinese theater which combines music, vocal performance and dance. The form was extremely popular in the Qing Dynasty and is regarded as one of the culture treasure of China. The Dan refers to any female role in Peking opera and all Dan roles were played by men.

Zuckerberg sitting on billions at age 30

By MICHELLE BERTRAN

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, is now the 11th richest person in America with a net worth of $34 billion, according to the Forbes magazine list. During the past two years, his net worth has more than tripled. From last year to this year only, his net worth has increased by $15 billion, which makes him the biggest dollar gainer on the Forbes list. As for the technology industry, he is the third richest American.

He recently dropped $66 million on 375 acres on land in Hawaii. Being the world’s second youngest self-made billionaire, he has been very influential and inspiring for many. In 2011, Zuckerberg was ranked first on the list of “Most Influential Jews in the World.”

Zuckerberg’s story is very impressive because Facebook’s success was not his initial goal or intention. It was a social networking site him and his friends in Harvard put together for fun in the dorms and shared it with other colleges. Before he knew it, the website took off and he became a billionaire at the age of 23.

Then as soon as others saw Facebook’s success, Zuckerberg saw himself caught up in a couple of legal disputes initiated by others who claimed involvement during the initial development of Facebook.

Zuckerberg definitely has one of the most intriguing success stories. You really never know what anything can lead you to or what anything can become.

Capturing the attention of the public

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

How often do you listen to the news while you’re in the car? Does the evening broadcast play in the background while you are eating dinner? Do you scroll through the news headlines on your mobile on the way to work without clicking through the full articles?

More and more, reading the news has become something that is done quickly and often when we are not fully engaged in what we are reading. This poses a threat to the news reporting industry as journalists are forgoing writing deeply researched stories in favor of those with catchy headlines in order to increase page views. This has also increased the pressure on journalists to write succinctly and convey the news in an efficient manner.

Gone are the days where reading the newspaper was a relaxed activity that was granted a specially carved out of period of time in the daily schedule. Now people are always multitasking and have the news on in the background.

Many news outlets have recognized the decrease in the attention spans of readers and have adopted video broadcasts to appeal to the more tech-savvy, younger audience. However, the use of these videos has an ulterior motive. With advertisers closely monitoring the time readers spend on webpages, watching videos captures the audience’s attention for longer than general articles and thus secures more advertising dollars for news websites.

This highlights the change in perspective of news conglomerates from providing news to gaining more advertising. In a sense, the public is losing in this instance as our attention is transformed into a commodity that these firms want to secure in order for them to draw in the maximum advertising dollars.

Another issue in response to the increased lack of attention of the public in reading long news articles is the emergence of newsgathering services such as The Skimm and The Daily Beast. These services provide a daily email newsletter that summarizes the top news stories for the day and can be personalized based on reader tastes and preferences. The Skimm founders noticed the lack of attention paid to the news media and summarized their reason for starting their daily summaries by stating:

“We soon realized three things: Reading the news is time consuming; Wanting to read the news is a hobby; lastly, not everyone has the time or interest.”

However, these services violate the principle of bias as their opinions about what is the most important news of the day imposes an implicit bias onto what news is fed to their readers. While these services ensure that people received their daily dose of news, people who rely on them are often led astray and can often miss crucial news items that might be highly relevant to them.

Ultimately, the way in which individuals absorb the news is based on personal preference. Whether one chooses to read the print newspapers, online websites or receive e-mail updates, it is important to remain aware of the potential biases that may be clouding the objectivity of many news outlets.

The weight of the Sunday paper

By GABRIELLA CANAL

It is no secret that print journalism is dying. It is no secret that the culture of our generation is the culprit. Our “click-frenzy” has appeased to our increasing and dire need for instant gratification. This same frenzy is the reason for my current frustration as an aspiring journalist: does it actually matter if I write five or 500 words anymore?

What happened to the weight of the Sunday newspaper? I am sure that, at one point, all of us have fallen victim to one of our parents’ grumbling “back in my day” speeches. However, the stories my dad has shared with me about what the newspaper used to be have stuck –looming over me with every passing year as a journalism student.

“Every time I pick up the newspaper, it’s thinner and thinner,” my dad always used to say.

Are we writing for the sake of content or instant views? There are so many advantages today to having instant news. There is no need to wait for the Sunday paper to know what problems face our communities and countries.

After all, it wouldn’t be news if it wasn’t instant and there is no crime in using the technology we have today to inform the public as quickly as possible. But in exchange for instant updates, I feel the American audience is losing the ability to really know about a subject because no one ever finishes reading – no one flips to page two or B1 anymore. I am guilty of this as well.

Today, our communication is enhanced in almost every way possible but what we lack is face-to-face communication. And this sort of communication is crucial in the industry itself.

Newspapers used to be powerhouse employers but now, as many put it, they are “dying out.” Core offices, where once ideas were pitched and gathered are now replaced by e-mails to the editor from home. The human factor is gone because of the ability to submit articles online. Does the industry face the extinction of the newsroom?

The overall theme of modernity presents these unforeseen challenges to the field of communications.

theSkimm: News in the 21st century

By EMILY JOSEPH

Have you heard of theSkimm? Are you a Skimmer? If not, get with the 21st century … if reading the news is not your thing.

A daily e-mail subscription started by two friends and former journalists, theSkimm brings the top stories of the day to you via email. But the news is “unique” per se because as their website says, theSkimm is a “filter.” It analyzes the top stories of the day and “breaks it down” in an easy to understand manner. They give pop culture comparisons, include sarcastic comments and write for their target audience: the 20-something woman.

I see the benefits and drawbacks of theSkimm. As a subscriber who wakes up to the e-mails first thing in the morning (you can pick what time of the day to receive emails), I really enjoy the service. But I’m also the type of person who reads/watches the news on my own time. Even after reading theSkimm in the morning I’ll turn on the Today Show or local news because that’s just something I like doing. I don’t rely on it as my only source of information, but more as additional support.

Screen Shot 2014-10-01 at 4.24.07 PM

An article from theSkimm on Wednesday, Oct. 1.

For those who don’t read or understand the news, especially international news, theSkimm can make you sound like a Harvard graduate instead of a high schooler. (Exaggeration, but you get the point).

Instead of raising your eyebrows in confusion when a colleague asks if you’ve heard about riots in Hong Kong, you would be able to respond. However, if you wanted to really contribute to that conversation and form a strong opinion, you should probably do further research and reading.

I can see how traditional news-followers and devoted newspaper subscribers would have a fit over theSkimm, but I think it’s really a great service for modern young adults. Particularly college students who are just transitioning out of the “all-about-me-world” to the “real world.” It’s a good stepping stone from relying on just Twitter for the news.

Who knows what the future holds for theSkimm, or print journalism for that matter. But as of right now, it looks like both are here to stay.

Fear mongering in news out of control

By DYLAN WEEMS

These days the news seems to be consistently telling us that we should all be afraid for our lives. I’m surprised that people aren’t running around and panicking in the streets due to the reports of all the things that can (and according to the news, will) kill you.

Fear mongering has gotten out of control. The most recent example is that of the Ebola virus. Every day a new story emerges about a new person who is sick or a new area that is a hub for infection. Meanwhile, the most amazing aspect of the entire “outbreak” is being entirely ignored. Both Americans who were infected and brought back to the United States for treatment were given some substance that entirely cured them of this formerly incurable disease.

No one is talking about this story because healthy people aren’t interesting or newsworthy to our society. Fear keeps eyes on the screen. It almost seems like the news is trying to scare people into staying in their homes where they can be “safe” so they will watch more news.

The other nasty pitfall that comes from fear mongering is that people won’t actually realize when a major issue emerges. If everything is an emergency, nothing is. When a real crisis arises, people may ignore it and then unknowingly put themselves in danger.

I hope that this trend comes to a halt, but as along as people keep watching the news as it is currently, there will be no reason for the networks to change.

Using social media as news sources

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

The escalation of news reporting is heightened through the use of social media, which increases the involvement of the public in leading news issues. This week, the world watched as Hollywood actress Emma Watson spoke at the United Nations about feminism.

While the brave act taken by this actress was covered in news media, this positive coverage was overshadowed by the ensuing public reaction, which involved threats against her safety and privacy.

Multiple news outlets reported on Watson’s moving speech, which addressed the issue of gender equality, and her bravery was highly praised. However, the fast moving pace of the Internet enabled the public to share their own opinion and quickly created negative trending Twitter hashtags.

She was publicly targeted by hackers who threatened to expose nude photographs of her. While social media can be used positively to increase awareness and action for social causes, in this instance, people who disagreed with her views abused the mask of anonymity provided by social media to comment in a vicious manner.

As more and more individuals look to social media as a source of news, it begs the question of how trusting we can be of the information it presents, as it is often heavily clouded by personal biases.

EmmaWatsondeathhoaxBut what is more shocking is the way that this was reported in the media and the number of inaccuracies that were released about the situation.

One of the most disturbing aspects for me was the fact that USA Today, a newspaper Web site that I frequently visit, reported on the death of the actress, which was a hoax.

This exposes the pervasiveness of the issue of fact checking for news reporters.

When a source assumed to be extremely reputable reports on issues like this, it brings into question the credibility of the whole reporting entity and can change the perspective of readers in their trust of the source. This further highlights the increased influence that social media is having on news reporting.

Not only are reporters writing about what is occurring on social media, the reporters are beginning to trust social media as fact. This idea is frightening for the news reporting industry and society at large due to the fact that social media is heavily clouded by personal bias.

Groundhog Day incident haunts mayor

By SHAWNA KHALAFI

On Thursday night a story came out about the death of Charlotte, the groundhog at Staten Island Zoo. This particular groundhog is the same one that New York City mayor Bill de Blasio dropped in February of this year at a Groundhog Day event.

Even though this accident with the mayor happened seven months ago, many news source were blatantly suggesting that the groundhog’s death was a direct result of her injury following the mayor’s mistake. These stories also seemed to take the incident very seriously, which at times seemed ironic since it involves the death of a rodent, not a human.

Other stories worked to dismiss this claim by quoting a spokesman for the zoo as saying, “It appears unlikely that the animal’s death is related to the events on Groundhog Day.”

Although this story may seem like a very minor incident among major news events, it is a perfect example of the dangers of drawing unwarranted conclusions.

As journalists, it’s important to never assign blame to anyone involved in a story and to not insinuate any causes or connections that we do not know to be true. It is up to the journalist to present all relevant and accurate information to the audience in an unbiased manor.

Diction and bias in Ebola news

By SHIVANI ALURU

The tendency for Western reporters to frame news within a Western perspective is completely expected, but presents a problem in terms of bias. When the lens that a person views the world through is so intuitive and as instinctual as breathing, it is difficult to separate facts from perceived truths. Perceived truths, in this instance, are what people fundamentally believe is real and true despite any lack of pure factual evidence.

A pressing example of this problem has emerged in the Ebola news circulation. Whatever the medium from newspapers to five-minute YouTube clips, nearly every report frames the Ebola outbreak and the handful of American and European cases as the fault of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, including several news outlets that have also conflated the area into “West Africa.”

This overwhelming pattern is dangerous especially in the case of Africa, a continent that has long been subjected to Western prejudices and is still working towards elevating its status in the world. The average person in the U.S. often lenses Africa as a place of terrible poverty, war and chaos and this perspective is highly toxic. It permeates every facet of life and in particular news. The curious thing about presenting Ebola news in the U.S. is that everything comes back to vaguely racial tones, despite the fact that Ebola affects most humans the same way. Regardless of physical location, importance or appearance pretty much every human will die the same way if he or she contracts Ebola, making every news report that hints at American invincibility almost funny.

There are no reasonable solutions to this problem, at least not ones that wouldn’t take years to see through, and as such this entire issue become food for thought, specifically concerning how subtle word choices can affect the direction of a piece.

Journalism always has a vaguely emotional tone because humans are emotional by nature and all biases, despite striving to keep them covered, show through.

Is the iPhone 6 Plus bendable?

By MICHELLE BERTRAN

It appears to be that iPhone 6 Plus users are complaining about their new phone being bent after keeping it in the pockets of their pants for a while, especially if you are wearing tight pants. Apple has not responded to this issue, according to CNNMoney.

People all over the world are posting pictures and comments in regard to this in the hashtag #BendGate. However, many of these images seem to be Photoshopped and last year, there were some reports of the 5s having the same problem, so this is nothing new to Apple.

Now the question is, if you have a $750 phone, why would you sit on it while it is in your pocket? Or should the phone be extremely durable (almost invincible) if that is the retail price?

I think it goes both ways. If I paid that much for a phone, I would take much better care of it and keep it in my purse, rather than in my tight jeans where it can easily slip out of my pocket (considering how big it is) or sit on it.

Meanwhile, for a phone that expensive, it shouldn’t be so sensitive to the point where one can easily bend it with one’s own two hands. But iPhone 6 Plus owners should take into consideration that this phone is made up of aluminum; a material that is rather flexible.

There was a video posted on YouTube by Unbox Therapy where it shows a man trying to bend the iPhone with his bare hands. The man on the video said that being able to bend the phone with your hands is a matter of strength, but definitely possible. In an email to CNNMoney he said, “Grab it in the middle with the glass facing out and give it everything you have, it’ll bend.”

White House tries to control watchdogs

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

Earlier this week, Paul Farhi with The Washington Post reported cases of the White House demanding that members of its press-pool change their reports.

The White House functions on a system whereby a small group of journalists known as pool reporters receive exclusive access to presidential events. The reports of these journalists are e-mailed to a database, including news outlets, for them to use in stories nationwide.

The pool reporters share their reports with the White House press office, which is responsible for distributing them to the members of the database. Reporters say this office has forced changes in reports before their release to media outlets. Essentially, the White House is trying to control which information is circulated and allowing only the coverage it sees as favorable.

The press, commonly referred to as the fourth branch of government, is supposed to be a check on government. How can journalists be watchdogs if their content is being reviewed?

In the majority of cases, a journalist should not allow his/her sources to review an article prior to publication, as this would give the source undue power over the journalist. It is the journalist’s responsibility to report as accurately as possible that occasionally provides an exception to this rule.

Such an example would be when writing an article concerning a complex subject, such as astrophysics. Since the journalist is not an astrophysicist, he may need to verify the accuracy of his report with the expert source.

The changes being demanded by the White House press office are not complex matters. In fact, they are oftentimes quite trivial, such as a statement that an intern fainted during a press briefing. It is the principle of government infringement on freedom of the press under fire here.