News on the internet: Fact vs. fiction

By ZACH STUBBLEFIELD

The most-shared story on Facebook before the election  was “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President, Releases Statement.” It had more than 960,000 engagements.

It was a fake story.

This is a troubling trend. A lot of people who are getting most of their news online cannot tell what is fake when discerning stories. They just take what is in print for granted, they automatically assume it is true.

This was fine before the internet, because most things that were actually written and printed had a high chance of being true. It would cost an unnecessary amount of money to print out a lie and distribute it for no reason. They would have to deliver it door to door and make it look as if it is a legitimate news source.

This is not the case with the internet. It is cheap and easy to fabricate a story online. It takes a small amount of time to create a website that looks similar to an actual news source and once that site is up and running millions can see it.

People must be wary of this, because spreading false information leads to uninformed opinions and lessens the legitimacy of real news sources. People must be diligent about the sources they get their news from and make sure they are reputable.

Fake news sites are only become more complex with the advent of new technologies. Users of the internet must know how to differentiate real news sites from the fake ones so that we can have discourses with valid and factual information.

Protests show discontent with Trump

By MARISSA VONESH

Since Donald Trump became the president-elect on Nov. 8, citizens across the United States have protested the president-elect himself along with other concerns.

Protests – mainly generated in urban areas – have grown to be more than just a defiance of Trump and his actions. Now, protestors, dominantly young adults, are peacefully taking the streets to advocate for minority rights and overall discontent with American politics.

However, many protesters did not even participate in this year’s election. For example, in Oregon about two-thirds of the arrested protesters either chose not to vote or were and are not registered to vote.

The dissatisfaction with Trump has cultivated a platform for the American public to walk together and discuss discontent. Aside from political protests, now protests against the Dakota Oil pipeline are popping up across the country.

News media outlets have covered the nationwide protests and other impacts of the election, such as the increased hate crimes towards minorities and violence towards Trump supporters.

The news organizations are taking their traditional biases. Fox News continues to speculate on whether the protests are real or paid propaganda and discusses the millennial dissatisfaction with a mocking tone. On the other hand, many outlets besides Fox have failed to report maltreatment of Trump supporters and have leaned heavily left following the election.

Where all organizations are failing is the in represention of the people who voted for Trump. Where are the people who voted for Trump? What are their lives like? Are they all rural, uneducated, white males?

Social media is overwhelmed with posts claiming, “Maybe not all Trump supporters are racists, sexist, etc., but they all decided that they weren’t deal breakers.” With comments like these, the protests and the general effects of the election, it appears like those who voted for Trump have no voice. Dialogue is not happening between the opposing views, yet it is necessary for both sides to state their opinions in order for the country to prosper.

Although racism, sexism and hatred in general should never be tolerated, there is an entire segment of the United States population that has been put into a box and dismissed.

In a few instances, media is speculating about these voters. For example, in a post on Glenn Beck’s website by Riaz Patel, executive producer of Axial Entertainment, Patel shares his experience as a gay, Muslim, Pakistani-American immigrant trying to understand Trump voters in Alaska.

This reflection sheds more light on the Trump voters than most news organizations have presented. Patel explains their economic struggles and their hope for a change. Patel suggests that a selection of the population was voting for social issues, whereas another was voting for “survival.”

By exploring the Trump voters’ perspectives in black and white perspectives, the American media is, in many ways, continuing to point fingers and divide the nation. When most of the American public sit in an area of gray, it is extremely important that journalists investigate and report fairly to make a more informed society. Hate from all sides is only exacerbated by the media, and although news does not create the hate, it does have the power to quell it in many instances.

Information is key. Unbiased reporting is key. Thorough investigation is key. When the news outlets are failing to put these type stories on the front page or on their Facebooks, more divide, and sadly mistrust, is cultivated.

Trump criticizes news media

By DANIEL LLOVERAS

Numerous news media outlets, including CNN, NPR and The New York Times, reported Wednesday that Donald Trump’s presidential transition was in a state of disarray.

According to the reports, the disarray was marked by the firing of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and the subsequent hiring of Vice President-elect Mike Pence as chair of the transition. It was reported that Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser, purged the transition team of anyone affiliated with Christie.

Trump emphatically refuted the claims of turmoil in his transition team. Trump attacked the news media, particularly The New York Times, for the reports.

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-6-03-58-pmHe tweeted that the reports were “so totally wrong” and that the transition was going “so smoothly.”

While Trump’s criticism of news media organizations is nothing new, his attacks will carry more significance now that he has been elected.

Since Trump has the tendency to deny any negative coverage involving him, the role of the news media may increase during a Trump presidency.

News media outlets have a responsibility to seek the truth and report it. Journalists must remain vigilant in spite of Trump’s denial and make sure that the American people are not being lied to by the president-elect.

A national self-analysis underway

By MARISSA VONESH

After the United States’ presidential election on Nov. 8, 2016, Donald Trump won the election despite political polls that projected Hillary Clinton to win by a landslide.

Major news outlets, such as The New York Times and the Huffington Post, made predictions that were wrong, writing off Trump and proclaiming Clinton as the absolute winner.

Once Trump won, many voters across the nation felt misled by mainstream news media. In an article from The New York Times, the media company explained how numerous letters came in asking why it was so off and proclaiming mistrust in the news and journalists in general. Furthermore, mistrust and disdain was heard – loud and clear – as subscriptions to The New York Times were canceled.

The news media outlets, namely The Times, have began processing what went wrong and how they can improve in the future.

Journalism is designed to create a well-informed voting public, and whether or not the American agencies did that this election season is up to question. Most of the election coverage had a liberal bias, almost all news outlets missed the views and representation of rural America – which ended up being a deciding factor in the election – and now agencies are covering more fear about Trump than potential policies and positives Trump could mean for the country.

America is not just the urban centers of New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami and Chicago. There is no need to spin more fear, more panic and more drama into the American public that already feels disheartened about this past election season.

The inconsistencies with current polling techniques are a large reason to blame for the surprise win of Trump, but more importantly, the way the news media are continuing to cover the aftermath of the election is disappointing. Opinions and emotion are exaggerated and objective opinions seem to be a thing of the past.

In a period in American history where it is absolutely vital for journalists to be objective, expose injustices and represent the public, media agencies have fallen short.

Potentially, Trump winning the presidency could help expose journalists to areas of improvement.

Editors and journalists are already confronting the change.

“If I have a mea culpa for journalists and journalism, it’s that we’ve got to do a much better job of being on the road, out in the country, talking to different kinds of people than the people we talk to,” Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, said.

Baquet makes a point, the bubble of social media, community groups and families does not paint the whole picture of the story. My hope is that journalists continue to improve and continue to strive to serve and inform the American public.

Trump cuts into Clinton’s lead

By DANIEL LLOVERAS

With Election Day four days away, the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has tightened significantly.

According to FiveThirtyEight, Clinton now has a 66 percent chance of winning the presidency, down from 86 percent in the middle of October.

Trump’s resurgence can be attributed to FBI Director James Comey, who wrote a letter to Congress indicating that the FBI was reviewing more of Clinton’s emails. Comey wrote that, while the investigation has been reopened, it is unknown whether or not the emails contain any relevant information.

Comey was chastised by the news media, Democrats and even some Republicans for interfering with the presidential race so close to Election Day.

Daniel Richman, an adviser to Comey, criticized the news media for blowing the letter out of proportion. Richman argued that the letter explicitly expressed the uncertainty of the case and that the news media took the information out of context.

“It would be really nice if members of the media and members of the public realized that there’s a real possibility that there will be duplicates,” Richman said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “Since they haven’t been checked, the bureau can’t say, but we can guess from the outside.”

Richman’s argument, while logical, ignores the fact that the news media has an obligation to report on issues relevant to the public.

Considering the amount of uncertainty in the case, Comey should have kept the information within the FBI and written the letter after determining whether or not there was significant information. The news media is not to blame; the vague, ambiguous letter is itself misleading to the public.

Comey’s letter and its subsequent coverage has impacted voters who already consider Clinton to be untrustworthy. In addition, it has distracted voters from the sexual harassment allegations that nearly sunk the Trump campaign in October.

Journalism and social media outlets

By CLAUDIA BROWN

In the 21st century, journalists don’t just write articles. These days, they have a very strong presence on social media as well.

Their presence now is on the list of the “Top Ten Things” that can make or break reliability from individual promotion to business promotion, to articles coming from news outlets.

It may seem as though news articles are posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn as information is being released. However, that is not necessarily the case.

Yes, all news stations are going to try to get the most recent information out before all others however, there is a calculated method to having an “appropriate” and successful presence on social media.

Businesses and news sites posting on social media is much different than individual posting.

People post on their personal social media accounts as many times a day, week or month as they chose and there is no right or wrong way of doing so.

News outlets however have a strict policy, if it is not followed, they seem unprofessional.

The book The Art of Social Media by Guy Kawasaki explains the rules and reasonings of the social media business method.

For example, the book shows the most successful (social media successful: the most views) businesses post to Facebook about two times a day between four and five days a week, Twitter, everyday at least three times a day, Instagram one time five to seven days a week, and LinkedIn is more flexible.

For LinkedIn, though, one still does not want to post more than two times a week.  And when posting on LinkedIn, all must should be more professional and business oriented than general posting on the other social media outlets.

These general tips allows people, reporters and businesses to gain social media power through out the internet.

Convergence of news media platforms

By MARISSA VONESH

Beginning Nov. 14, the Wall Street Journal will debut a new version of its print edition after a decline in print advertising.

The paper will combine different sections due to a reduction in pages.

The Business & Tech and Money & Investing sections will be combined into one section. Likewise, the art, lifestyle, sports and cultural news will be incorporated into a section dubbed Life & Arts. Futhermore, the Greater New York section will be minimized in size.

The Wall Street Journal‘s move is not unlike other print-based news media. The decline in print advertising is affecting newspapers across the nation. Companies are investing more time and energy into digital platforms and less in print publications.

Although there will always be a market for print, it is necessary for print news media to adapt to the trends of the time. Because digital platforms are increasing in popularity, companies need to develop new techniques to deliver stories to their audiences.

The issue with online news, however, is that the editing process can be mitigated. Online news media are published with the immediacy that readers expect, but often not for the better. Although sites can update articles in an instant, the issue of posting inaccurate information increases with digital news media in comparison to print (which is edited thoroughly).

On the other hand, focusing more on digital platform can allow for companies to invest more in content. Page numbers are no longer a problem, cross collaboration happens in an instant and articles can be updated with new information.

As long as news sources continue to produce quality content, investing in online endeavors may be the only thing companies can do to survive in the modern media world.

Media work overtime to stress you out

By COURTNEY CHENNAULT

With the presidential election just a week away, the news media are doing everything they can to make the final days as dramatic as ever. Looking at the list of “Top stories” on CNN’s website, the reader sees a hodgepodge of headlines with “Trump” and “Clinton” sprinkled in as many times as possible:

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-5-48-12-amPutting in “Trump” or “Clinton” does not make automatically make the story newsworthy.  Going down the line, I looked at the first three articles and found myself wondering why they were “Top stories.”

The first article, “Did Trump vote for George W. Bush?” is about a radio interview in 2009 in which Trump denies voting for Bush in 2004, though he stated last January that he did vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

The only purpose that this article serves is exemplifying that Trump contradicts himself with lies. This might have been relevant if this same point hadn’t already been proven a hundred times over the past year. Trump has lied excessively throughout his entire campaign, so why is this a “top story?”

In the second article, CNN reveals that John Kasich wrote in John McCain on the election ballot instead of voting for Trump. This fact is not newsworthy!  Many prominent republicans have come out saying that they will not vote for Trump. This story might be have been newsworthy if a significant number of republicans revealed that they too wrote in McCain in some last-minute attempt to unite as a party and elect the senator.  But with the story the way it is, I don’t see why people should care.

Finally, the third article is about Gary Johnson saying the Clinton could be impeached over her email scandal. Over the course of the election, no news station or network, including CNN, has cared what Johnson had to say. About anything. But now, the election is close, and CNN is eagerly quoting him because what he said about Clinton is scandalous and will certainly stir the political pot.

In conclusion, the news media are working overtime to post anything remotely related to Trump and Clinton to sway, excite, and overwhelm voters in the final countdown before all ballots are cast.

Kelly, Gingrich clash on Fox News

By DANIEL LLOVERAS

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, clashed with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly during a live television interview earlier this week.

Kelly asked Gingrich about the sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump and whether or not they were causing him to slip in the polls. Gingrich responded by accusing Kelly and other members of the news media of bias against Trump.

“You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy,” Gingrich said to Kelly. Gingrich also said that Kelly has not given a fair amount of coverage to the scandals of the Clinton campaign.

Kelly argued that her show, “The Kelly File”, has covered all stories relevant to the 2016 presidential race, including the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton and the private paid speeches that Hillary Clinton made to big banks.

Kelly said that polls show that the allegations against Trump are concerning to voters and that she has an obligation to report on them.screen-shot-2016-10-27-at-2-34-05-pm

After the exchange between Kelly and Gingrich, the news media responded by speculating on the future of Fox News.

The traditionally conservative network is in a transition period after CEO Roger Ailes was ousted over sexual harassment accusations.

Fox News is not used to its anchors clashing with Republican politicians. Kelly’s altercation with Gingrich is representative of the division within the GOP over the Trump campaign as well as the network’s increased willingness to allow its journalists to disagree with party leaders.

With the network’s niche audience divided over Trump, Kelly’s moderate perspective is key to retaining viewers who may be turned off by traditionalist anchors like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.

News morphing into entertainment

By MARISSA VONESH

Hollywood actress Shailene Woodley was arrested along with 27 other people after protesting against the Dakota Access Pipeline on Oct. 10, Indigenous Peoples’ Day, in North Dakota. The protest, Standoff at Standing Rock, gathered 200 people who attempted to create a blockade on the pipeline’s construction sites.

The pipeline is in the process of being built on grounds considered sacred by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. There is also a fear that the pipeline will create contamination of water via fossil fuels.

Woodley, along with the other protestors, were met with armed police officers in large trucks. Although there was no violence at the event and protestors left the land when asked, Shailene among 27 others were arrested.

Woodley was targeted specifically for her arrest due to her Facebook live stream. Approximentally 40,000 viewers were watching the event live off of Woodley’s Facebook page.

Woodley pleaded not guilty to criminal trespass and rioting charges.

Most news sources, aside from news dedicated to strictly Hollywood entertainment, failed to report the event until days after and, for some, even a week after.

Woodley expressed her concern in a penned article in TIME magazine.

“It took me, a white non-native woman being arrested on Oct. 10th in North Dakota, on Indigenous Peoples’ Day, to bring this cause to many people’s attention. And to the forefront of news publications around the world,” Woodley wrote.

Woodley elevates an important notion: News media often do not cover stories that are vital for the public to know about. It should not take a celebrity to make a topic important. News media should be advocating for the public, for rights of the people, to create an informed society.

It should not take a celebrity to make a topic important. News media should be advocating for the public, for the rights of the people, to create an informed society.

Modern journalism and mainstream news media are quickly approaching a territory that is motivated by money. News outlets are businesses, but what about ethics? What about stories that matter? Although reporters and editors commonly choose stories that sell airtime or print editions – which in itself is not bad, far too often are necessary topics of debate pushed aside.

With the changing platform of news, it is difficult to get readers and viewers attention; however, maybe the public doesn’t care because they aren’t informed or people feel like things don’t impact them.

In Woodley’s Facebook video, as she is walking away, handcuffed and escorted by officers, she shouts backward to her mom who is holding her phone. “I hope you’re watching mainstream media.” Woodley’s statement highlights the need for media to focus on topics that impact the environment, cultures and society, such as the pipeline.

News outlets could do a better job at gearing the topic of stories to the issue, such as contaminated water, opposed to the “gossip” or “selling point,” such as Woodley.

Journalism is changing, but that doesn’t mean the integrity, wit and depth of journalism have to.

Reporter continues to hound mayor

By ALEX GOLDMAN

Stockton Mayor Anthony Silva is unhappy with many people.

Perhaps none more so than Stockton Record metro-reporter Michael Fitzgerald.

I’m sure Silva thinks the microscope has been hovering over him and his every move since  his inauguration. I’m also quite sure Silva thinks the unending news coverage about his is unwarranted and unfair. Except Silva is a mayor in one of the largest cities in California. Not only is he the mayor, but, to put it one way, he’s an unconventional mayor at that.

So sure, he’s going to live in the eyes of the news media. His failure to understand why such a thing might be falls in line with his whole mayorship, from day one to present, as you will see momentarily.

Fitzgerald has been there at every turn to chronicle how poorly of a job Silva has done with his time in office, both administratively and politically. Let’s take a look at Silva’s mayorship through Fitzgerald’s reporting.

First, we’ll start with Silva’s accomplishments.

“In terms of accomplishments in office, Silva ranks beneath do-little Mayor Ed Chavez (2005-08). He has set the bar for getting nothing done,” Fitzgerald writes.

Fitzgerald goes on to write about the only policies Silva has successfully championed while in office. Both of them, “the fiscally suicidal Safe Streets crime-fighting plan and a reduction in building fees,” were handed to him by developers, according to Fitzgerald.

Now that we’ve looked at Silva’s successes, why don’t we delve into the remaining 98% of his term.

Silva calls himself “the people’s mayor,” fighting on behalf of everyday citizens, from the middle-class to low-income families. He was sure to stand up to big money influences while in office, not only with words, but with actions, right?

Wrong.

“He’s made some rich guys richer,” Fitzgerald writes. “All the while demagoguing about the rich bigwigs who control this town and how he stands up for the economically disadvantaged.”

Okay, so maybe standing up to money while in office isn’t as easy as the politicians want us to believe. That isn’t to say mayors are impervious to submitting to financial influences.

But what about possessing knowledge on the rights, duties and powers that a mayor does actually have?

“[T]hen it appears Silva did not understand the office for which he ran,” Fitzgerald writes. “He has been publicly shocked and perturbed by the statutory limitations placed on the mayor’s power.”

Well, maybe the educational system is to blame for Silva’s ignorance on the position he campaigned and was elected for. He can at least keep his word on things under his control, can’t he?

“Ethical lapses followed,” Fitzgerald continues. “Silva promised if elected not to work two jobs. But he did. He promised not to take a mayor’s salary until crime tumbled. But he did. There were more.”

Alright alright alright, but he had to at least have some ideas on policy and positive changes that can be made to the citizens of Stockton. Right?

“What did not follow was policy,” Fitzgerald goes on. “It became clear that “The People’s Mayor” had no real ideas for governing and no real interest in the hard work that goes into civic improvements.”

But wait, there’s more:

“When I asked him what his position on growth was — on sprawl vs. infill — he looked at me as if I had spoken to him in Mandarin,” Fitzgerald writes.

While Silva has a laundry-list of political and administrative failures, Fitzgerald looks to the distraction he has become as the figurehead of the city, a city which is attempting to move out of the darkness of being the largest city in United States history to declare bankruptcy (before Detroit).

“[I]t is as a distraction from the serious business of governance where Silva has been a Hall-of-Famer,” Fitzgerald writes.

I wrote about some of those in a previous post.

To strengthen the case that Silva is unqualified to run a city of 300,000 people – or any city, for that matter, and as if his case needs any strengthening – look no further than his reactions and response to the most serious of his “lapses.”

“Silva is refusing to cooperate with investigators trying to understand how his stolen gun came to be used to kill a 13-year-old,” Fitzgerald writes. “And he has been indicted on felony and misdemeanor charges related to his alleged participation in an alcohol-fueled strip poker game with teens.”

Come Nov. 8, material as great – and horrible, considering his is an elected public official – as what Silva provided might be harder to find.

In all likelihood, it won’t just fall into our lap.

No politics, ESPN warns Le Batard

By MICHAEL FRANCA

Miami-based ESPN personality — and University of Miami graduate — Dan Le Batard is no stranger to controversy. He has a history of testing the limits of his employers… and getting suspended for doing so.

For example, he’s been suspended for paying for billboards mocking LeBron James and calling an ESPN film about Bob Knight a “mountain of elephant crap.” He even lost his MLB Hall of Fame vote for allowing Deadspin to cast his ballot one year.

Le Batard, though, has had good reason for each of these actions; whether it be in the name of fun or in protest.

He’s also notorious for hosting a national radio show on ESPN that isn’t necessarily about sports. He focuses on the pop culture and social elements of the sports world and often ventures entirely out of this environment.

So when the footage of Donald Trump’s conversation with Billy Bush leaked and was defended as “locker room talk,” Le Batard suggested that the controversy was right in his show’s wheelhouse.

When he asked the rules surrounding his ability to talk about the subject, his producer told him that he “probably said too much already.” While he said he understood the hesitancy by ESPN to approach anything regarding politics, he was upset that they didn’t trust him enough to cover the subject without taking a political stance.

Le Batard later admitted that he would be suspended if he did end up talking about the Trump tape on air.

While it may be sensible that ESPN try and avoid anything that could result in political stances being taken, Le Batard has a proven track record of handling tricky subjects without displaying any bias.

It’s also interesting that the Colin Kaepernick protest sparked conversations on ESPN airwaves that contained political opinions and no objections were raised. Clearly the issue is taking a stance on an issue involving a candidate running for office.

Johnson’s league suspension upheld

By NICHOLAS BRUENS

The National Football League has outlawed the performance enhancing drug (PED) use among players for many years. The league also, however, provides an approved list of supplements that players can take.  To our surprise, it seems that players aren’t even safe when it comes to these approved supplements.

Lane Johnson is the starting right tackle for the Philadelphia Eagles and is now serving a 10-game suspension.  Prior to the season start Johnson tested positive for a banned substance.  The interesting part is that Johnson claims it was something in an approved NFL supplement which caused the positive test.

Johnson told Jay Glaser of Fox Sports that he took an amino acid approved by the NFL which caused the positive test.

This provided an difficult decision for the NFL. They do state players should take the substance at their own risk and they still may contain substances that are banned. But they also should consider how misleading that is. They ultimately decided to carry out their initial decision of a 10-game suspension as this has been Johnson’s second run with he PED code.

The news media have covered this story for weeks due to its long timeline. Johnson tested positive prior to the season and has only been officially suspended in the sixth week. During that time it has been a constant stream of stories making if he finally be suspend this week.

The NFL’s drug policy has also come into question by the news media.  Questions have been raised as to whether an approved list should exist if the players may not be allowed to take  the drugs on the list.

Overall, the news media has found that Johnson’s case and suspension will serve as a precedent and scare players from taking any supplement that may or may not cause them to potentially fail drug tests.

Lane Johnson’s attorney has expressed dissatisfaction regarding the NFL’s decision.

“We are disappointed with Arbitrator James Carter’s summary ruling,” Steve Zashin, Johnson’s attorney, wrote in the statement obtained by NFL Network’s Mike Garafolo. “We will wait for his formal written opinion. After we review that decision, we will consider all available legal options.”

News media struggle with Chibok story

By MARISSA VONESH

Twenty-one Chibok school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram more than two years ago were freed Thursday.

The Islamist terrorist group, Boko Haram, kidnapped more than 270 students from a school in Chibok in April 2014. Although the militant group had been terrorizing Nigeria for years, the kidnapping provoked international attention and increased support to stop Boko Haram.

After numerous negotiations with the Islamic militant group, the Nigerian government finally made a breakthrough this week. The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Swiss government brokered a deal between Nigeria and Boko Haram which allowed 21 of the girls to go home.

The celebratory information has spread quickly across global platforms but has lead to conflicting information. Some groups, such as The New York Times, have sources that claim that no Boko Haram members were released from jail in exchange for the women. In opposition, other news media groups, including the Chicago Tribune, claim there was a swap.

The news outlets have different quoted sources yet, not all are credible. Phrases such as “a credible source” or “someone close to the negotiation” were used as attribution in the reports. This tactic points to a trend of large news media organizations valuing getting out information instead of getting specific sources that are proven true.

In important, historical stories, such as the initial coverage of a major kidnapping, it is vital for journalists to have accurate information. The fact that the news media are not consistent, are negligent about sources and compete to get out information quickly oppose to correctly needs to change.

With the increased presence of social media, the pressure to get out information is heightened. New audiences are more attracted to quick blurbs and immediate information; however, if news sources are giving inaccurate information, their credibility decreases.

It is the primary concern for a journalist to uphold the truth –– a truth that is should not be compromised.

‘Honor killings’ found dishonorable

By MARISSA VONESH

Under new legislation, perpetrators of “honor killings” in Pakistan will no longer be able to walk free if pardoned by the victims’ family. Honor killings, or the killing of a relative (usually female) who has brought dishonor upon his or her family, have risen in Pakistan with more than 1,000 documented cases in the past year.

After a series of gruesome honor killings and the death of the social celebrity Qandeel Baloch, legislators closed the loophole that allowed families forgive perpetrators and pardon them with no jail time or punishment. Now, all perpetrators will face a mandatory jail sentence of 25 years and will only be pardoned if they face the death penalty — they will still be forced to serve 25 years.

The news media account of the new legislation has effectively shown the impact of the social media and the average citizen to get the law changed. The legislation underscores a major step in the right direction for social justice and the heavy impact that exposure has on influencing government entities.

Furthermore, news media outlets stated that the law is one small step to conquering the honor killings and the rooted traditions that come with it. Because these killings usually come with acceptance and approval, it will take much more than a law to deconstruct the idea that killing for “family honor” is wrong, especially because many cases of honor killing go undocumented.

On the other hand, while news media were well-sourced with opinions of people against these killings, the perspective and justification for the honor killings were minimal. Especially reading news articles from across the world where the culture is different, it is important for news coverage to explain alternative views. Without fully understanding why the culture promotes the killing of a relative, one is unable to comprehend the story in its entirety.

Candidate stumbles on words

By MARISSA VONESH

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, choked once again during an interview Wednesday night when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked for his favorite political leader. Johnson was not able to respond.

Bill Weld, Johnson’s running mate, attempted to help Johnson, yet, Johnson failed to come up with an answer even after Matthews asked numerous prompting questions.

Johnson simply responded, “I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” referring to his incident of not remembering the war-destroyed Syrian city in a prior interview with MSNBC.

Furthermore, Johnson updated the status of his “brain-freeze” with a tweet:

The 2016 presidential race has been filled with scandals and comparisons of the candidates’ failures. With this mindset, news outlets have vigorously grabbed onto Johnson’s gaffe. The nominee’s inability to think on his feet has only contributed to the pool of reasons many Americans feel like there is no good candidate for president.

Although the information is interesting, a lot of news sources’ energy has been focused on the politician’s dirt. Even if Johnson spoke carelessly or Clinton has reasons to be mistrusted or Trump has no filter, these missteps should not be the only information reported. It is important to know the personalities of future leaders, but what is more pressing is what their plans are for the country’s future.

The focus on the mistakes of the nominees, moreover, restrict the politicians to exaggerated stereotypes. It is unrealistic for a human being to be perfect constantly. As journalists, remaining unbiased should be a priority. The public should be able to understand all viewpoints, the good and the bad, about the candidates.

It is critical that news outlets begin to discuss the election in terms that will truly inform the voters, not continue division, promote pigeonholes and make the election an entertainment spectacle.

Journalists’ health reporting falls short

By CLAUDIA BROWN

Frequently health articles are headlined with words that promote the understanding of possibility as oppose to fact.  The New York Times published many health articles this week.  All of the titles follow this patter.

Commonly used headline words are qualifiers such as “might,” “sometimes” and “most likely.”  Sometimes the headlines are even in the form of questions.

Similarly, when there is a possible cure to an illness, the hypothesis/abstract of the study or experiment is condensed into the title. This discusses the possibility of a cure being discovered/invented.

For example, “When a Spouse Dies, Resilience Can Be Uneven,” “Why Do Obese Patients Get Worse Care?,” “Too Old to Donate Blood?, Immunity Offers Hope to a Cancer Patient,” but there is no certainty.

Scientists as well as the news media do not want to make a statement of fact in case the statement is wrong or simply the “cure” is not successful for everyone.

Journalists, the news media and the scientists/doctors do this to engage and educate people in present day tests,studies, and theories. The article headlines are good at attracting the readers. But almost every article is listing and discussing facts about the respective illness or topic while explaining the thought process and potential outcome.

This is opposed to actually discussing the cure or solution, which would educate the public.

Instead, so many of these types of articles are published that the meaning and purpose lose credibility and causes discussion and confusion.

An allegation through social media

By MARISSA VONESH

Appalachian State’s color guard is accusing the University of Miami’s football team of assaulting some of its members.

The claim is that the UM football players ran out after the half-time performance and aggressively knocked into and inappropriately groped some of Appalachian State’s color guard members without any apology.

The university’s athletic director, Blake James, said the investigation provided no evidence to the allegation and the university does not tolerate any suggestive or violent behavior.

The alleged incident was elevated by color guard member Sophie Randleman’s Facebook  post.https://www.facebook.com/sophie.randleman/posts/10207949840047144

Randleman’s social media post emphasizes disrespect she felt from the football players and describes, in detail, her experience of the event.

The investigation of the case has not confirmed Randleman’s claims; however, her post accurately demonstrates the use of new media in news.

News sites reference Randleman and use her as a source in their articles and broadcasts. Most of the sites only quote Randleman and did not gather information from UM’s football team or other color guard members.

Furthermore, some news sites did not investigate beyond her physical Facebook post and simply quoted from her posting.

The social media post is an effective method of receiving initial information and gathering sources, yet it is concerning to see that events could be blown out of proportion and that some news sites will not investigate past social media. Without more sources and accurate information, news will then falter to being mere gossip.

As social media become more dominate in the news gathering field, it will be important for reporters to react in a professional manner and balance being timely with being accurate.

Nowhere to hide for Stockton’s Silva

By ALEX GOLDMAN

Mayor Anthony Silva (R) of Stockton, Calif., has had one interesting run as mayor.

Pending the results of the upcoming November election, that run has the potential to continue.

Anyone privy to Valley politics is aware of Silva’s tenuous term as mayor. Perhaps none more so than Stockton Record columnist Michael Fitzgerald.

Silva’s bad rap has only been brought on by Silva himself. He has a laundry list of boneheaded decisions and proposals to his name.

What’s on that list, you ask? Bear in mind that this is an abridged version…

There’s the time he walked around town putting up campaign posters. At 2 a.m., In his bathrobe…

At a city council meeting, he declared himself Stockton’s first black mayor. Silva is Hispanic.

He proposed a vision he called “Stockton Proud” that would bring in cruise ships, mini golf, “fun rides,” and a space needle to Stockton’s port. It’s not as if Stockton was the largest American city to declare bankruptcy before Detroit.

When Carrie Underwood came to Stockton and had the misfortune of performing on the night of a city council meeting, Silva moved his agenda to the beginning of the meeting, declared a 10-minute break after some time and skipped the rest of the meeting to attend the concert.

After partying one night, he got into a drunk fight in his limo with a friend after a dispute about his wife.

Then there’s his Aug. 4 arrest while at his Mayor’s Youth Camp in Silver Lake, Calif., for providing alcohol to minors, playing strip poker with nude teenagers and recording conversations during last summer’s camp.

At every turn, Fitzgerald has been there to call the mayor on his bull. Or his weirdness. Sometimes it overlaps.

Fitzgerald’s responses have made an impression on me.

There’s something that tickles me in the right spot when I read one of his intelligently written articles or comments on Silva’s latest inane exploit. It must be the juxtaposition of idiocy and brains.

Such as what Fitzgerald had to say when Silva bounced from the city council meeting to see Underwood.

“It’s ironic that Silva postured as a Public Safety candidate,” Fitzgerald said. “Because one of the votes he skipped out on was the new health plan for city employees. Exit interviews with departing police cited unsatisfactory health insurance as a prime reason for quitting. The new health plan is therefore the most important step the city can take to retaining police hires.”

He proceeded to finish Silva off.

“A mayor sincerely concerned with law enforcement would want to vote on that,” Fitzgerald said. “A mayor who knows only how to campaign and to party would not.”

I had a good chuckle when reading about what Fitzgerald thought of Silva’s “half-baked” homeless plan.

Sometimes all Fitzgerald needs is a few words to get his point across. 

I love Fitzgerald’s reporting. He doesn’t let Silva off the hook for anything, nor should he. Yet he’s able to do it with a comedic tone that I simply eat with a spoon.

Or maybe it’s just that juxtaposition.

Forgiveness is the answer

By MARISSA VONESH

Rodney King, an African-American man, was severely beaten in 1992 by Los Angeles police officers. After the officers’ who beat King were acquitted, massive riots were triggered in the LA area, leaving many killed and buildings looted, damaged and burned.

Despite the violence and racial tension, King became known for his forgiveness and encouragement of forgiveness.

Today, his daughter, Lora King, is promoting the same thing. Lora King, along with members of the LAPD, spoke with young adults from the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, an organization dedicated to serving at-risk youth through job opportunities, education and training.

Lora King spoke on not generalizing all police officers and building bridges between the community and the police force.

In the past few years, racial tension in America has become the forefront of news especially concerning police and civilian contact.

Because of the newsworthy elements, often media report on shootings, beatings and other unjust actions that occur out of police civilian relationships. With the negativity that is commonly in news feeds, it is difficult to have a perspective of hope. Reporters will not comment every time people serve at a soup kitchen or open a door, but they will cover stories of violence and crime.

However, by reporting Lora King’s ability to stand side by side with members of the same police department that beat her father close to death, a necessary model of forgiveness is sprinkled among the heavy news of crime and disaster.

Sources in the greater California area, such as the San Bernardino County Sun and the SFGate tastefully decided to talk about the event. Not only was Rodney King a figure in the 1990s for racial tension and pardon, but his daughter serves as an effective symbol for combating the continuing issues the country faced 24 years ago.