When media creates the drama

By EMILY JOSEPH

I’ll admit that I over exaggerate in regular conversation, and in that context it’s a little more accepted. But if I were reporting a news story, regardless of the topic (sports, national, local), I would be sure to reign in my drama-like tendencies. But it seems that some journalists do the opposite. Not only the entertainment and gossip journalists, but sports and news journalists too.

The saying “no news is good news” is not necessarily true for media outlets. Drama and disputes appeal to viewers/readers. Plain and simple. So what’s a journalist to do when there isn’t any drama one day? They create it…and audiences soak it up.

By asking inciting and provoking questions to subjects, journalists can create a story out of nothing. For example, the Cleveland Cavaliers are 1-3, and for the last 20 minutes on Sports Center reporters have been discussing “what’s going wrong.” They brought up possible behind-the-scenes feuds and egos. But is anything really wrong? Maybe if they had a severe losing record halfway through the season, but they’ve only played 4 games. Like LeBron, and before him Aaron Rodgers said, “r-e-l-a-x.”

Even in non-sports journalism, like the news surrounding the Ebola crisis, reporters can cause a stir over, well, nothing. I understand that Ebola is a very serious, life-threatening issue, but we need to reign in the drama. If we listened to the doctors and not solely the reporters “interpreting” the doctors, we would know just how difficult it is to catch Ebola and that the chances of getting it in America are less than being struck by lightning.

The next time there’s a slow news day, journalists should embrace the downtime and not create trouble for the public and more work for themselves.

 

The changing face of online news

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

With the transformation of news reporting to an online medium, traditional forms of breaking the news have been replaced by new, constantly updated platforms. The pervasiveness of these platforms is enhanced by their interactivity.

However, while in the past the online news environment was dominated by the same news corporations that controlled print news journalism, recently the online shift has enabled new forms of news websites to emerge.

One particular website that has infiltrated the online news arena and is fighting to claim its place in the list of reputable news sources is Buzzfeed. Originally, Buzzfeed’s main purpose was providing information that already existed on the Internet in an entertaining and engaging format. However, after establishing Buzzfeed News, the website has transitioned into breaking news in a similar manner to other online news sources.

Buzzfeed appeals to a younger audience through its informal format. The high use of images, videos and gifs presents human interest news stories in an compelling way. This is furthered by the ability for users to comment on the stories, often leading to incredibly high levels of shares for many news articles.

This highlights the main attribute that sets Buzzfeed apart from its competitors, the way that it capitalizes on the blurred boundary between print and online media that has been created by social media.

However, while this format has gained popularity with the younger generation, which consists of heavy social media users who favor interactive articles, the lack of a traditional news format can force readers to question the credibility of the news reported.

Satire shouldn’t be our only news source

By DYLAN WEEMS

Midterm elections are finally over. The Republicans now control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. While this isn’t really a problem, the way that the news covered the elections was abysmal. It seemed like the only thing that the news cares about was how the president was going to get along with Congress if Republicans won the majority. Policies and state legislature seats seemed to go unnoticed by everyone—everyone except the big three satirical news shows: “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report” and “Last Week Tonight.”

While these shows bring significant amounts of laughter to millions across the nation, it is a little sad that they seem to be the most legitimate news source at times. They seem to highlight the true issues of the elections in a way that people want to watch. I will admit that due to the fact that “Last Week Tonight” airs on HBO, John Oliver has a little more leeway to peel back the layers of politics without worrying about angering sponsors.

However, that is an issue in and of itself in other news organizations. They are so afraid of angering candidates that would pay money to put advertisements on their channel that they don’t ever delve into the real issues of elections.

Satirical news is fantastic and entertaining, but it needs to be balanced by true, in-depth journalism that pulls no punches.

Military move to deter news media

By MEAGHAN MCCLURE

According to the recorded telephone calls obtained by the Associated Press, Ferguson, Mo. police officials admitted the no-fly zone was put in effect to dissuade the news media from covering the Mike Brown protests.

Originally, police claimed the order was for the safety of the city. Now, word has come out that it was actually intended to prevent news helicopters from covering the protests that have been shadowing Ferguson.

The protests have been a hot topic in the news media for a while. It has been four months since the shooting of Michael Brown and news is still coming out about the issue in the news media.

Constantly, the news media have been scrutinized for the way they have handled the situation, but this new discovery could take some heat off the media.

If the law enforcement had issued the no-fly zone to purely restrict media coverage, it is an undeniable violation of the rights we are guaranteed under the First Amendment.

So far, government officials haven’t responded to these allegations, but the clear violation of basic constitutional rights, denied by the people who are trying to protect us, is clearly very troubling.

Media battle through cartoons

By MEAGHAN MCCLURE

On Sept. 23, India successfully launched its first Mars mission. Shortly after, The New York Times ran a political cartoon mocking the country that can be construed as racist.

The caricature depicts an Indian man, leading a cow, into a building marked “Elite Space Club,” which is full of white men in suits.

The Times soon experienced relentless backlash, to which they took to Facebook to publicly apologize.

The best part of this story is how the Indian media handled this offense.

They did not come back with a retort right away, no. They waited for the perfect opportunity to passive aggressively mock the U.S. back, which conveniently came in the form of a failed space mission.

On Oct. 28, an unmanned rocket – resulting in no injuries or deaths – exploded during liftoff. This proved perfect ammunition for the Indian media comeback.

Following the accident, the Hindustan Times ran a cartoon depicting an Indian couple observing the explosion, exclaiming, “It’s not rocket science for us!” The explosion took place in the “Elite Space Club.”

This little correspondence between two country’s newspapers is entertaining, and something most readers would never pick up on. I commend the Hindustan Times for approaching the situation in more of a light-hearted manner than most media outlets would take. They accepted the offense and acknowledged it in humor, all while creating an interesting story to look at from a media perspective.

You can take a look at both of the cartoons here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/hayesbrown/an-indian-newspaper-just-had-the-perfect-comeback-to-a-racis.

Journalism becomes propaganda

By SHIVANI ALURU

Across the world in Pakistan, drone attacks are decimating life left and right, leaving numerous people dead, homeless and/or grievously injured. Curiously, these news stories rarely have airtime running longer than a minute and are often relegated to footnote status in newspapers and on news sites.

On Oct. 29, drone victims from Pakistan visited the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C., to speak about the collateral damage inflicted by fighting terrorism. Nabila Rehman, 10, her father and her older brother all came to the U.S. to speak on the behalf of their fellow Pakistanis and obtain answers as to why drone strikes were the most effective method to fighting terrorism when they had a very high cost — people’s lives.

Almost shockingly, their experiences and statements fell on deaf ears with only five of 435 representatives even showing up for their hearing. As the story trickled down, almost no news outlets picked up the narrative.

Comparing this experience to that of Malala Yousafzai, who was brutally shot in the head by a Taliban fighter in 2012, shows that the U.S. cares only for the stories that conveniently line up with its current action plan.

After Yousafzai’s attack and subsequent recovery, the U.S. and Western media applauded her and turned her into the face of what the “anti-Taliban” can accomplish. Oddly enough, when Yousafzai asked President Barack Obama to stop drone attacks, she was immediately reduced to cute, little girl status from her initial framing as a brave woman fighting for freedom and justice.

Both Rehman’s and Yosafzai’s stories have similarities but their paths have been almost exactly perpendicular in nature when it comes to their news media portrayal. Rehman’s story, though equally compelling in nature compared to Yousafzai’s, frames the U.S. in a bad light and in that sense is relegated to the back burner to be picked up by independent news sources.

This is unfair in treatment and goes against some of the most basic ethics of journalism, namely to stay unbiased and report all news fairly. Without remaining cognizant of these tenets news outlets easily fall into becoming propaganda machines for the government.

Media shape attitudes toward disabled

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

In 2010, the United States Census Bureau reported that 56.7 million Americans, or nearly one in five, are living with a disability. For comprising such a large portion of the population, people with disabilities and policy issues related to disability are under-represented in the media.

To make matters worse, when the media do include people with disabilities in their reporting, it is generally approached from one of two ways. Either it is suggested that people with disabilities should be pitied or the individual is portrayed as heroic. Stories often describe an individual who “struggles” with disability X, yet achieves something “remarkable.”

A recent story about a girl with cerebral palsy who won the title of Homecoming Queen is a case in point. The story emphasized that her winning was not the result of “pity” votes. The takeaway point seemed to be that it is remarkable that she won and legitimately at that.

Why should it be so surprising that she won?

In no way am I attempting to downplay the young lady’s accomplishment. Being named Homecoming Queen is certainly special and she certainly deserves all of the attention that surrounds being queen. Stories just shouldn’t be framed in a way that suggest to the public that succeeding while living with a disability is unusual or extraordinary.

The news media have a powerful role in creating perceptions and influencing the views of the public. Reporting that pities people with disabilities or on the other extreme deems them heroic for doing things not generally seen as heroic are an obstacle to the acceptance of people with disabilities into society.

What will you earn as a journalist?

By KATHERINE FERNANDES

Since the decline of newspapers, less people watching TV and the rapid growth of digital media, journalism salaries have been falling. Today, new graduate journalists are notorious for low salaries.

If you really want to be a journalist, you must be passionate about the career and must be willing to start from scratch with “not the best expected salary.”

Federal data show that news reporters are falling further behind workers in other occupations. The mean annual salary for reporters in the U.S is below the national average for all jobs.

As it turns out, a decade ago journalist earned more money than they do now. Reporters, on average, earn $2,080 less than the national average.

Certainly, journalism is a field where the competition is immense. The competition is increasing now even more because positions in this field are less. We probably have heard about the economic issues hitting the news business nowadays. Many newspapers with financial trouble have been forced to stop hiring new journalists and even lay off journalists that already have a job in the newspaper.

Not to mention, beginning broadcast journalists earn almost the same money as a beginning reporter in a newspaper. Although the competition for jobs in broadcasting is high, if you become an important anchor in a big media market, you’re going to have a high salary.

There are undoubtedly other careers such as medicine, business, architecture and law that pay much higher than journalism. However, journalism is a wonderful profession where you are always learning new things, meeting new people, traveling, exploring new things and doing interesting things. Despite the old journalism jobs being destroyed and many people fighting for these job positions, journalism is a great career to pursue when you really love what you do.

Yes, there are scarce career opportunities in this job field, yet if you want to be in journalism, you have to be willing to work harder and harder to be better than the other journalists fighting for the job you want.

Networks ignore midterm elections?

By GABRIELLA CANAL

Early Saturday morning at a local school, I bubbled in my choices, signed my name and slipped my voting ballot into the scanner. Early voting in Florida had begun and, with elections less than a week away and much talk about Republicans yielding political gains, I truly have not seen much news media coverage on a midterm election of such political importance.

This year’s midterm elections, as opposed to 2006’s highly covered one, has not had much presence in any of the three big networks: ABC, NBC and CBS. Around 23 million viewers tune into these networks as their source of information, trumping almost all other networks. America’s media watchdog, Media Research Center, found that the “Big Three” aired a combined 159 campaign stories during the 2006 election and have only aired a meager 25 this year.

“Amazingly, since Sept. 1 ABC’s newly-renamed World News Tonight has yet to feature a single mention of this year’s campaign, let alone a full story. In contrast, eight years ago ABC’sWorld News aired 36 stories that discussed that year’s midterm campaign, including a weekly Thursday night feature that then-anchor Charlie Gibson promised would look at the ‘critical races,’” said Drennen and Noyes — two journalists covering this strange media blackout.

Instead, news of troubles overseas and social crises have taken the limelight. Albeit, these issues of Ebola outbreaks, ISIL’s movements, and Ferguson’s latest outcries are all pressing and of major concern to the American audience, the midterm election deserves its fair share of coverage.

Additionally, Drennen and Noyes found that “eight years ago, there was no escaping the negative news for Republicans. Not only were polls projecting a major swing to the Democrats, but a scandal involving Florida Representative Mark Foley received major attention from all three network evening newscasts. Of the 159 network evening news stories that fall, nearly two-thirds (103, or 65 percent) conveyed either mainly bad news about Republican candidates, or mainly good news about the Democrats, vs. just seven (4 percent) conveying the opposite message.”

This issue started out looking like another case of poor media prioritizing but is actually beginning to show all of the symptoms of media bias. Let’s look at the obvious: the networks are giving little air time to the bad political news for the Democrats this midterm election. In 2006, when the Democratic party had the upper hand, that was all that the news tickers read. One would think networks of such prestige and power would uphold even the most simple of journalistic standards. Rather, one would expect that.

But who is truly at the source of this issue: The networks, the advertisers that support the networks or the six corporate conglomerates that own the majority of mass media outlets in the U.S. (Disney, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.)? Most importantly, will this trend continue in the coming years after the results are in?

To read more about this media black out, follow the link: http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/tv-news-blacks-out-years-bad-election-news-democrats.

Jurnid: Self-marketing for journalists

By DOMENICA A. LEONE

All aspiring freelance journalist should acquaint himself or herself with this groundbreaking creation.

Jurnid; set to be “the next big thing,” is a platform aim to connect journalists with outlets in need of content creators.

Founded by Miami-based freelance media creative Andrew Quarrie, Jurnid works as a platform for students and professionals to showcase their talents and build an audience that is interested in publishing their content.

The site welcomes all journalists regardless of specialty and it’s free to sign up to be a contributor.

It serves multiple purposes. You might want to use it as a blogging platform or as a place to find worthwhile paying projects by connecting with business and branded newsrooms. Or it might also work the other way around.

People might take a glimpse at your posts and then ask for a helping hand. Even to the point that, you can establish a pay plan for your readers if they are finding it so interesting to whip through your writings.

Either of the ways the application has the added benefit of dealing with payments, that to be honest, they just don’t tend to come always on time on the real world. The service is designed to provide a low-cost way for either print or photo journalists to monetize their work.

And why should we students care? Not just for early exposure, but for the further ‘prep’ and training it has to offer. The site provides a mentoring community between journalists and professionals. This for providing feedback(mainly aimed at beginner and journalism students) as they publish their portfolios on the platform to help them thrive as self-managed entrepreneurs.

On an era were everything seems to be shifting towards the digital, you sure want to keep an eye on this. Word of advice.

‘Surviving’ as a female sports journalist

By EMILY JOSEPH

As a female, an avid sports lover and maybe a future journalist, lately, I’ve been discouraged. Sports and journalism are individually hard enough to break into, but when fellow journalists and media members do very little to accept female’s sports reporters as “one of their own,” it becomes almost impossible to succeed.

More so, when the media equates appearance with talent, it only hinders the opportunities for women in this field.

I read an article in Sports Illustrated a few weeks ago about Rachel Nichols, a former ESPN reporter turned CNN reporter and talk-show host. It discussed how Nichols has become an impactful sports journalist and how she transitioned to CNN. But since then, Nichols’ CNN show was cancelled, proving that it’s very hard for women to actually succeed in this industry.

Just weeks prior Nichols was praised on social media when she asked NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell more “aggressive questions.” She didn’t skirt around the issue like other reporters (male or female) did. Despite her approval from social media and fans all around, she didn’t garner enough “support” to maintain her CNN show.

Also, not counting TV personality Erin Andrews (because I think she is more of a personality than reporter anyway), how many other female sports journalists could you name? That just goes to show that while women may be succeeding in other journalism fields, sports is not yet one of them. Speaking of Erin Andrews, this football season is her first on the sidelines with the leading Fox Sports crew. She replaced long time veteran Pam Oliver who felt she was demoted because she wasn’t as “young or blonde” as Andrews.

Would this matter for a male reporter who may not be “the best looking”? Most likely not. It’s just that women are inherently judged by their appearance, and media entities assume that a good appearance = good ratings. But until fellow journalists and those media entities get into the 21st century and start not only accepting but promoting female sports reporters, we have a very tough road to success.

Documentary, journalism share much

By XUANCHEN FAN

Basically, journalism and documentary film own many common characters. According to Wikipedia, journalism is gathering, processing, and dissemination of news and information related to the news to an audience. The function of journalism is similar to documentary film. Only difference is that the journalism is real-time reporting and the documentary film is a historical record.

Nowadays, many documentaries are finding news publishers to build the ideal platforms for their work. At the same time, schools of journalism increasingly offer courses related to multimedia production and film editing.

Journalists and filmmakers are increasingly using the same methods to tell stories. For instances, “A Short History of the High Rise” is a documentary film which tells ts istory in a reporter’s tone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9Y0C3pPxk).

One of the reasons that journalists began to tell stories in a different way is that images and videos contain a power to move and persuade audience to believe the fact. Conversely, the words and data are not convincing enough for the modern society.

People are able to see many news videos on CNN, New York Times or other news websites. Journalists are more and more adapt to use these technologies to tell a story.

Like Andrew DeVigal, the chair in Journalism Innovation and Civic Engagement at the University of Oregon, posted on Twitter “I came for the technology and stayed for the story.”

An interesting fact is that “storytelling” is the word of the day. Journalists and reporters are preferred to be named “storytellers” and “story-makers” rather than the original names “journalist” or “filmmaker.” No one wants to be maligned as a “content creator.”

Journalism and documentary films are gradually combined and build a clearer picture for their audience. As DeVigal posted on Twitter “Let’s move from ‘public service media’ to ‘public participation media.'”

The FBI impersonates news source

By LINDSAY THOMPSON

It was recently discovered that, back in 2007, the FBI created a fake news story impersonating the Seattle Times. The bureau’s reasoning behind fabricating the story was that they used a link to the article to catch the suspect responsible for multiple bomb threats to a local high school.

The Seattle Times is now claiming that it is “outraged” by the FBI’s actions. The question on the table now is: Is this matter of dealing with someone’s First Amendment rights?

The FBI did not stop the Seattle Times from printing whatever they choose to, which is typically the issue I always thought the First Amendment was there to protect. However, the key word in that sentence is choose. The Seattle Times did not chose to publish or have their name associated with that story. Instead, the FBI put words into the mouth of the paper.

Should it now be included and made clear that the press has the right to post, or not to post?

It’s questionable whether or not the FBI’s actions infringed on anyone’s First Amendment rights. What is clear, however, is that this information of the FBI’s involvement could impact reader’s opinions of the Seattle Times, and has the potential to discredit the reputation of the news source.

Taking it a step further, if the FBI could so easily do this with one news source, why couldn’t they with other sources?

I don’t believe this incident will lead journalists to begin questioning all sources of news. Still, I think it will raise questions about how the general public knows what is legitimate or not when it comes to news sources and this might make some journalists’ jobs harder.

The true killer in America

By DYLAN WEEMS

Public health has been in the news quite a bit lately, mostly due to the Ebola “scare” that has captivated Americans’ attention. Previously, of course, it was the swine flu and the bird flu.

However, everyone, including news organizations, seem to ignore the true threat to American health: Our food. The American diet is quite literally killing people and no one seems to notice or care.

Yes, everyone knows that McDonald’s is bad for you and that pizza won’t give you six-pack abs, but no one is talking about the loopholes contained within food that is generally considered healthy. Whole wheat bread can actually be chemically separated and put back together in order to sell more cheaply—with high fructose corn syrup added as well. This syrup suppresses insulin in your liver and therefore inhibits your body from knowing when it is full. Therefore you eat more.

So what? No big deal right? They have pills that can help with diabetes and coronary artery disease. Unfortunately, pills cannot cure these problems, they can only help symptoms. No news organization is investigating as to why that is the case. Pharmaceutical companies have billions to lobby with and do not want people to know the true cure: Eat like a caveman.

In clinical studies, a lifestyle and diet change was 40 percent more effective at treating diabetes than the most successful medication. Those with type two diabetes who adopted the Paleolithic diet (eating only what a caveman would eat as it came out of the ground) eliminated the disease from their body in a week.

We owe it to ourselves to be healthy. It needs to start with awareness via brave and insightful journalism.

Breaking news and privacy issues

By GABRIELLA SHOFER

The way that news reporters handle sensitive issues is a strong point of discussion in the news industry. Over the weekend, I became engrossed with following the updates of a national news story in Australia that hit home for me as it affected my community and dealt with a sensitive issue.

The story covered the disappearance and search for an 11-year-old girl that was declared missing after running away from home on Saturday evening. The search began for the girl when she hadn’t returned home since she left after an argument. Fortunately, she was found after a desperate two-day search conducted by more than 1,000 volunteers and the police.

The positive attributes of the news industry were highlighted through their assistance in the search for the girl as multiple news outlets broadcast the story on the television, print newspapers and online. This aided the search by increasing awareness and, ultimately, the cohesion of the news outlets with the family was what led to the girl being found safe so quickly.

However, following the girl being found and returned to her family, I found certain aspects of the news coverage of the story rather invasive and potentially detrimental to her recovery and her future. In particular, when the parents of the girl went to fetch her, they were bombarded by news reporters standing outside their house and following them with cameras and recording devices. This invaded their privacy during an incredibly difficult time. Additionally, the girl’s father then became the subject of some news articles as they delved into the family history to discover that he was due to attend court on a separate manner.

In covering this sensitive issue, reporters need to remember the potential future impact that their reports can have on the girl’s life. Not only will she need to recover from the ordeal, but she also has to deal with life in the spotlight until the news coverage dies down. This is incredibly difficult for a girl of her young age to have to deal with and the reports will forever follow her due to the everlasting nature of the Internet and the ability to find information with a simple Google search. This demonstrates how it is important for news reporters to remain mindful of both their obligation to report the news but also to respect the privacy of the people involved in their stories.

More information about the story can be found here.

Media focus on college athlete, porn star

By SHAWNA KHALAFI

On Wednesday, Notre Dame freshman football player Justin Brent was spotted at the Knicks preseason game with his date, well-known porn star Lisa Ann. Brent, a wide receiver for his school,s football team, later posted an Instagram picture on the two in bed together.

Immediately, the story was all over the news: from sports publications to gossip magazines to hard news outlets.

Some gossip-fueled news outlets like TMZ were quick to jump to conclusions and judgment about the fact that not only is the woman a porn star, but she’s also a 42-year-old dating an 18-year-old athlete.

However, this story was also covered by what some might call more credible news outlets, such as the Huffington Post. In the article published by the Huffington Post, the writer is careful to not share any personal opinions on the matter. Instead, the article consisted mostly of the Instagram pictures in question, as well as quotes taken directly from Lisa Ann’s Twitter feed showing her reaction to the ordeal.

This goes to show that even the most trivial of news stories, like who’s dating who, can instantly spark media attention from all types of news outlets. However, there is a big difference in the ways that these news outlets portray these types of stories.

In addition to falling in the popular college football category, this story in particular also involved many common controversies, such as age difference in relationships, the male / female double-standard and respectability of occupations in the adult film industry.

Protests, riots, and the news media

By AUTUMN ROBERTSON

On Saturday, Oct. 18, 2014 the annual Pumpkin Fest was held at Keene State College in Keene, N.H., a celebration where the community tries to set a world record for having the most carved and jack-o-lantern-ed pumpkins.

This seemingly sweet event changed abruptly as some of the Pumpkin Fest goers lost control and began to riot throughout the entire event, destroying property and setting many objects on fire.

The news media started to compare the riot to the Ferguson protests and that became a concern to many who have been actively following the action in Ferguson.

The Pumpkin Fest riot and the Ferguson protests are not one of the same. There has yet to be a consensus of how the festival riots even began, let alone a leading cause to the belligerence. Therefore, the media should not have compared the two events.

Once the news media heard about Ferguson, they made out the angry protesters as “rowdy animals” without listing the cause as to why they were protesting in the first place, while the Pumpkin Fest protesters were often referred to as “mischievous college students” who drank too much. The news media seemed to down play these student’s destruction while making the Ferguson protests appear wild and without cause.

Is this because the news media only reports what they can view rather than getting the full story? An outside viewpoint would have appeared the same since law enforcement used force, rubber bullets and tear gas on both the protesters and the rioters. So to someone who did not know much about either event, they would have “looked” the same. But does that mean that they should be reported as the same?

Overall, the news media must start looking deeper into the story. If not, they will continue to compare apples to oranges.

Virality and sourcing online news

By SHIVANI ALURU

After the National Report, a fake news site, published a report about the arrest of Banksy and the reveal of his identity as Paul Horner, the Internet flew into a frenzy.

After the article was read more than five million times and shared approximately three million times, reputable news sites started publishing stories about the National Report’s hoax.

At this point, however, it was a little late for the news sites and blogs who did not take the time to confirm the story and banked on its virality being a sign of its veracity.

The National Report is a satire site from front page to obscure post, but its design unfortunately lends itself more gravitas than it should. It’s not obvious that the site is loaded with fake news and parody and, for the average reader, this can become incredibly confusing.

However, where the average reader ends and the journalist begins is where the excusability also ends in being hoodwinked by a satire website.

After the release of the report and the subsequent swell in attention, the many low and mid-tier news writers that neglected to fact check the story ended up with egg on their faces. The new way news is being disseminated hinges on independent journalists and their ability to break a story quickly and accurately. Often times independent news outlets from blogs to slightly more established networks, lack the hoops and chain of editors to stringently check each story for accuracy.

The reduced structure means that stories get churned out faster, but often at the risk of accuracy.

As journalism evolves, it will become even more crucial to hold ourselves to stringent reporting standards. It’s up to an individual reporter to maintain a high quality of work but without the help of an entire copy editing department it’s essential that the reporter stay cognizant of the basics of reporting and not get lazy, namely beginning a news report with facts not rumors or false information.

Freelancing: Start a journalism career

By DOMENICA A. LEONE

A computer. A topic. That’s all you need to come up with a story. And that’s all the tools journalists essentially make use of during the writing process.

So if it’s that simple; can anyone do it? Am I up for a journalism work position then? And the answer is that, in theory, yes.

Anyone can call themselves a journalist. First, because we are all able to come up with stories, thus making us attractive employable material for the newsrooms, which is always in need for material to add onto their publications.

Here the birth of this popular trend; an amazing way to make a couple extra bucks; not to mention under your own rules.

Becoming a freelance journalist is essentially being self-employed; being your own boss. You send your work to whichever publication you want to write for and you are paid for each piece of writing that is published.

So why is it popular? There are no rules or qualifications for entry. Even if you don’t have the experience. Or the degree that reads “Bachelor in Communications” (sorry for that four year college expenditure. Ouch!) All you need is a website and a LinkedIn account (Contacts darling!), an interesting story to report about and mad writing skills. With these, you’ll certainly be successful and even to prevail in the industry up to the point where you can make a living out of only freelancing gigs. In other words; “Your hobby can become your career.”

Risking our safety to gather news

By EMILY JOSEPH

Journalists have been known to go to great lengths to report breaking news. From standing on the front lines of war to sustaining a hurricane, journalists don’t back down from challenges.

With that being said, when is it enough? Where is the line that can protect them from serious harm?

The recent health crisis of Ebola has once again brought the issue of journalism safety to the forefront. Unfortunately (and ironically) NBC journalists went from just reporting the story to being the story.

Ashoka Mukpo, a freelance photographer for NBC News, was infected with Ebola while working in Liberia with a team of reporters. He was transported back to the U.S. and is thankfully okay, but there are thousands of people who have not been so lucky (predominately in West Africa).

After being pronounced “Ebola free,” Mukpo tweeted “I don’t regret going to Liberia to cover the crisis. That country was a second home to me and I had to help raise the alarm.”

His selflessness and dedication can be seen as honorable or crazy to some. Some people don’t want to put their lives on the line for the news. But others, like Mukpo, find a deeper story. They don’t just want to report, they want to help people.

I’m torn between fully supporting their desires and insisting they see a professional. Yet maybe I’m not at the point in my life or career where I understand their actions. In fact, I one day hope to be so passionate about something that I would “die” for it. Most likely that passion won’t be reporting, but instead my future family. Nevertheless I commend those who want to report on and raise awareness for issues throughout the world.