201603457caic1718-blog

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Reflecting on the aims I had made at the beginning of this module of what I hoped to learn, I feel that I have achieved all of my goals to some extent, though there are still areas which I think I could still improve upon.

My main objective was to learn to engage with a wide array of news sources, and be able to unpack them to consider the context of the story and the source reporting on it. I think I have learnt to be more analytical with the approach I take to researching news stories, as I have adapted my method to first identify the key approaches and themes that are considered in relation to a story, then narrow it down to focus on one for my blog. This has allowed me to more effectively compare articles, and although I still lean towards stories that support my personal opinion, it has encouraged me to also consider articles with opposing arguments. The hardest part was balancing my own opinion with the strong arguments presented by other sources. I found that by contextualising the stories using additional evidence, such as statistics or by comparing to other similar news stories, I could confidently present my own opinion, supported by evidence.

Overall, I think over the course of the module I have begun developing the skills to write about the news in a clear and intellectual manner, though there are still ways I could improve upon this. It has been a challenging but really interesting experience, and it has definitely helped me feel more confident about adding my own opinions to debates on current American events.

Learning Contract

On this module, I hope to learn how to approach current news stories from an analytical perspective; coming to an informed opinion that has not been created from the facts presented by potentially biased news sources, but rather from thorough and critically reviewed research. I plan to learn this by engaging with a wider array of news sources, and by unpacking these stories and assessing the cultural and historical contexts that influence these events and the way they are reported.

As a student blogger and journalist, it is my role to present current events and debates in America from an informed, well-researched perspective that can be supported with strong evidence and research. I need to be aware of how news influences people’s opinions, and be confident in the validity of the information that I present in my posts.

Posting to a public platform, and with a restricted word count, I will need to present my ideas in a concise, clear format that is accessible by a larger audience. I have to consider the implications of what I post, and any comments I make on peers work. It will be important to move past my initial reactions to a news story, to investigate the facts behind it and find evidence to support any opinions I put forward. Therefore, this module and the blog should help me develop those skills and allow for informed and intellectual debate on current American events.

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Fraternities; corrupting the youth, or being corrupted by them?

Leaked video footage of students from Syracuse University, all part of the Theta Tau fraternity, using racial slurs and making offensive jokes aimed at those with disabilities has sparked outrage and led to the expulsion of the fraternity. Concerns raised that this is evidence of a wider problem – this is the fourth fraternity expelled from Syracuse University during this academic year alone – has led to the university announcing they will be reviewing the entire Greek societies system. As University President Kent Syverud has stated, "we know this issue extends beyond one video and one fraternity."

Of course, as Kathleen Park, in a Washington Post opinion piece, notes, while it is “tempting” to agree that it’s the “toxicity of fraternities” that produces this behaviour, the truth is “a fraternity gone bad is a symptom of a larger cultural disruption.” After all, should we not be wondering why, out of this group of individuals, none saw an issue with this vulgar behaviour?

A Syracuse newspaper article suggests that these videos “exposed deeper problems on campus.” Notably, it cited a campus climate survey conducted two years ago that found that 20% of those who responded, a majority from minority groups, had experienced “exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct.” While the university states that it “values diversity and inclusion,” this story serves as a reality check, because these students clearly felt safe enough to make these blatantly offensive, crude ‘jokes’ which attacked minorities.

The actions of the Theta Tau fraternity are dreadful, and should be punished. But by focusing on them as a group, we risk ignoring them as individuals, none of whom foresaw the consequences of their actions.

[201603457caic1718-blog]

While you read this, some of your personal online information is probably being used without your permission… oops?

News that political data firm, Cambridge Analytica, has been harvesting Facebook users’ profiles sparked anger, not just at the company but at Facebook for ‘allowing’ this to happen. The New Yorker posted an article about the “Moral Reckoning in Silicon Valley,” and the Atlantic’s denouncement of the social media company begins by asking “What Took Facebook So Long?”

Yet, even while reading these articles, expressing outrage over ‘blatant’ privacy invasion, tailored adverts will be popping up, maybe to buy the DVD for that Netflix show you recently watched, or perhaps a link to the Amazon page you have open on another tab.

Surprise! The internet is not, and never has been, private.

As Shaun O’Grady astutely notes, “every time we use [the internet] we take a gamble – that the information we pass on about ourselves will be used or misused, whether we give any permissions or not.”

People willingly post to social media every day – according to Statista, Facebook had 2.2 billion monthly users in 2017’s fourth quarter alone – without considering the many other ways personal information gets online. How many times have you entered details on a website that promises to ‘forget your information after purchase’? If you are worried about companies seeing your posts on a social platform, inherently designed for public viewing, maybe you should question how willing you are to “take a gamble” with the internet.

Want something to stay private? Simple, write it in a diary, not an online post. The worst that could happen then is a nosy friend stumbles upon it, and they would certainly be much easier to deal with than a billion dollar social media company.

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Who is taking the lead on gun control?

The Parkland, Florida school shooting is one of 45 mass shootings that have occurred in America in 2018 alone [as of 12/03]. While student survivors rally for gun reform, lawmakers in Washington D.C. are showing signs of focusing on anything but guns. Trump has plans to meet with video game representatives, despite a lack of evidence showing correlation between simulated violence and real life gun crime, and the Senate has stated there will be no votes on new gun laws in the immediate future.

It is easy to understand why the #neveragain movement has gained such strong traction when it is becoming increasingly clear that the federal government intends to recycle the same ‘prayers than move on’ routine seen for every previous mass shooting.

But this does not mean nothing is being done; as ABC News reports, “states have taken the lead on gun control legislation.” One of these is Washington; since the shooting, new legislation has been passed banning the sale of bump stocks, and there are measures being considered to raise the age limit and establish a 10-day waiting period for purchasing a semi-automatic weapon.

This decision doesn’t reflect everything that could be done, but as Robyn Thomas, executive director of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, asserts, “States that get serious about passing stronger gun violence prevention laws have a much better chance of reducing the number of deaths linked to firearms.”

The Federal Government can offer all the ‘thoughts and prayers’ in the world, but it is states like Washington, which are taking pro-active steps, that serve as examples of the direction gun control should be heading in the United States.

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Federal Way, A Speed-Skating Legacy; Apolo Ohno, J.R. Celski, Aaron Tran

With Apolo Ohno, J.R. Celski and Aaron Tran, there has been American short track speedskaters from Federal Way, WA in the last five Winter Olympics. This legacy showcases the impact athletes have on future generations of competitors; as influencers, teachers, and role models.

As a Seattle Times article writes, being able to see someone from your home town competing can be highly influential. In their featured interview with Tom Eilertson, who taught PE at the school attended by both Celski and Tran, two students he remembers for their determination, he reflects “when you’re a kid in Federal Way and you see Apolo Ohno win Olympic medals and he’s a kid from Federal Way, too… it makes it real. Now it’s an achievable goal.”

The article also acknowledges the importance of having experience on the team; when Ohno was finishing his Olympic career in 2010, Celski was there, learning from his former idol and now teammate. Now Celski is that mentor, and clearly understands “the value in leaving his mark by helping the next generation of American talent.” USA Today remarked upon this, in particular Celski’s “calming influence,” despite not qualifying in either his 1,000-meter short track preliminary heat or the men’s four-team 5,000 meter relay qualifying heat. Although “disappointed,” in this result, the Olympian stated he was “really proud” of what he has achieved in this Olympics and his career.

This may be J.R. Celski’s final Olympics, but he can certainly be proud of being part of a Washington, and Federal Way, legacy of Olympians who, through newcomer Aaron Tran, will continue to inspire the next generation to think ‘I can do that too.’

[201603457caic1718-blog]

“They Resist, Blame, Complain and Obstruct,” The American Government at Standstill.

On the 19th January, after failing to reach an agreement over funding, the American government shut down. This should not come as a surprise; this issue has been building since September when the first of four temporary bills pushed back the vote on a long-term budget. It is equally not a surprise given how the last year has been defined by a parties-at-war mentality. Or, considering the last decade of increasing hostilities between Republicans and Democrats, that, as Susan B. Glasser asserts, “real deals are all but dead in Washington.”

Trump tweeting that the Democrats “resist, blame, complain and obstruct,” is a statement that could be applied to either party.

The blame-game has particularly become a staple of American politics; following the January 22nd vote to re-open the government, both parties returned to this almost immediately. The Independent noted how Republicans quickly labelled the consequences of no-deal a “Schumer Shutdown,” after Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, while Democrats responded that the Republican party’s failure to do nothing more than promise compromise has, as Senator Chris Murphy states, left the government in a “vicious Trump Catch-22.”

This accusatory rhetoric is not new; following the 2013 shutdown, the parties accused each other of holding the government hostage; Republican Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to negotiate with a “gun to our heads,” while President Obama warned “you don’t get to extract a ransom for doing your job.”

Can we really continue to ignore the widening divide between Democrats and Republicans? If not addressed, it is likely crises like the shutdown will continue to leave the government in turmoil as both sides “resist, blame, complain and obstruct.”

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Trump and Jerusalem: A Bold Move or Evidence of America’s Inability to be Neutral?

President Trump’s official recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel breaks with the longstanding stance of neutrality the United States has held in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The argument over the city, which both sides claim as their capital, has been considered a key factor in any peace deal negotiations, and therefore Trump’s announcement has been heavily criticised. In an Atlantic newspaper article, Peter Beinart argues that America needs to remain an impartial third party to prevent inciting further conflict, a stance which “Trump’s predecessors… understood. He does not.” However, this requires that America be seen as neutral in this region, but has this ever really been the case?

While successive presidents have, since 1995, waived the Jerusalem Embassy Act, delaying any definitive decision on the city’s status, their pre-election stances promised differently. In 2000, George W. Bush stated that after taking office he would “begin the process of moving the US ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital," while Barack Obama, after receiving the Democrat nomination, asserted that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel." Despite reflecting a neutral position once coming to office, these comments suggest an underlying biased, pro-Israel position. Perhaps Max Fisher’s New York Times comment that “much of the world already considered the United States a biased and unhelpful actor, promoting Israeli interests in a way that perpetuated the conflict” is more accurate.

Trump’s recent announcement may be a break from previous Presidents’ political stance on Jerusalem, it should not be a shock that he has taken this position. After all, the label of ‘neutral’ is not one we can place on America any time soon.

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Manson is Dead, But What of His Legacy?

Almost 50 years after the Tate-LaBianca murders shocked the world, Charles Manson has died. While his crimes were a defining moment in American history, the LA Times has released several reader-submitted letters arguing that the man himself should be forgotten. One stated “I was over Manson’s death when I heard it on the evening news,” and another asserts that he “hardly deserves a one-liner in the obituaries section.” But is it that simple?

If we only look at Manson and his crimes as marking the end of the counterculture of peace, love and rock-n-roll, then perhaps these readers are right and he has no place in our time. Yet, as Baynard Woods asserts, Manson “had more in common ideologically with far-right groups… than he did with the anarchic left.” The 1960s’ also saw the rise of the Civil Rights movement and increasing racial inequality protests, which Manson believed marked the beginning of a race war. He and his followers attempted to incite this war by drawing paw prints at their crime scenes to frame the Black Panthers. Thus the Tate-LaBianca murders weren’t “senseless” killings, they had serious racist motivations.           

Why is this important in today’s society? Because Manson might be dead, but the ideas he believed are, worryingly, not. Dylann Roof repeatedly referred to a ‘race war’ before and after he murdered nine black parishioners in Charleston and recent protests in Charlottesville included white nationalist groups armed with weapons and marching to rallying cries of ‘blood and soil.’

Some might want Manson’s name to die with him, but with his racist ideologies still all too alive can this issue really be laid to rest?

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Is Trump’s Response to Recent Tragedies Setting the Right Focus?

Four hours after a truck was driven down a busy path in New York City, President Trump was on twitter reiterating his stance on immigration; "I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!" This is a stark contrast from the terrible shooting in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and 550 wounded, when his only words were condolences to the victims. As the Boston Globe states “the Republican response is the opposite of demands made four weeks ago for… a refrain from “politicization.” So why is it that the New York attack is a catalyst for political action but other tragedies aren’t?

As John Cohen, an ABC News consultant and former Homeland Security counterterrorism coordinator, asserts, the answer is that this administration focuses on “attacks in which the perpetrator can be connected in some way to a foreign terrorist organization and therefore validate… the need for a travel ban and stronger immigration enforcement." The New York attack was committed by an immigrant legally in America but believed to have been radicalised by ISIS, therefore inciting a push for policy change. While a legislative-driven ban on bump stocks remains largely stalled in Congress, Trump has forcefully called for an immediate re-examination of US immigration policy.

Seven of the ten deadliest mass killings in modern U.S. history were committed by white Americans using guns, yet the President’s position and the political actions being taken following the New York attack goes against this available evidence. It presents a troubling question; is this focus on foreign threats going far enough to protect American lives?

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Will Weinstein Change Anything in Hollywood?

Over 50 women have accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault spanning several decades, placing his actions and others in Hollywood under scrutiny. As the Washington Times puts it, “some of Hollywood’s biggest names have been caught in the crossfire… each day brings a new round of accusations and apologies.” Weinstein’s own apology, stating “I came of age in the 60s and 70s, when all the rules about behaviour and workplaces were different,” only serves to call attention to the industry’s ingrained sexist attitudes. As Megan Garber notes “Weinstein returns, again and again, to the structures that can mould individual behaviour: one’s generation. One’s gender… “the culture then.” But does the era of one’s birth offer any excuse for their behaviour?

Setting aside recent accusations, Hollywood’s past reveals more cases of sexual harassment and abuse, including Roman Polanski, who in 1977 was charged for sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl. A clear example of Hollywood’s failings, and unwillingness to punish those caught doing wrong, as in 2003 Polanski was awarded an Oscar for Best Director despite being unable to collect it in person having fled the US. Among those supporting him, referring to Polanski’s abuse as a “so-called crime,” was Weinstein. It certainly raises the question whether this “new round of accusations and apologies” is really going to have any effect on Hollywood’s attitudes. As Kathryn Brownell notes “while previous sex scandals may have been bad for business… they dismissed them as bad choices made by scattered individuals, not emblems of moral rot in the system.”

Weinstein may currently be facing consequences, but in a few years’ time will he, and Hollywood, have changed?

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Confederate Monuments: Historic Reminders or Racist Symbols?

“I don’t fear 150-year-old statues of old dead white men. What I fear is the hatred we are seeing in real time in 2017.” 

That is Sophia Nelson’s response to the removal of Confederate monuments, an issue that has “flared up” since violent protests in Charlottesville that included white supremacists and neo-Nazis. It is one argument amongst many debating what these monuments represent and their place in society. Nelson is correct in drawing attention to the serious concerns regarding racial hostilities these events have highlighted. However, it is important to recognise how these monuments have become “toxic,” a symbol for those who preach racial hate.

Of the over 1,503 monuments to the Confederacy, many come with the burden of a later history, being symbolic of the racist attitudes during the Jim Crow era. The vast majority were built between the 1890s and 1950s, not as memorials mourning fallen soldiers but rather glorifying past Confederate leaders in order to “rehabilitate those who had waged war in defence of slavery and racism.” Although Nelson and others argue these serve as historic reminders, many were created out of racial prejudice and their locations in public spaces continue to promote this.

Jacksonville City Council President Anna Lopez Brosche spoke of plans to submit legislation concerning moving Confederate monuments to museums for "appropriate historical context" and Lexington Mayor Jim Gray tweeted that relocating two statues is not about “destroying, hiding or sanitizing history,” but rather “honoring and learning our history." These comments show an awareness that while removing these monuments should not be about erasing the ugly parts of American history, their place is in a museum, not public squares.

Sources

Opinion: Don’t Take Down Confederate Monuments. Here’s Why. (Sophia A. Nelson, NBC News)

Stunned Historians Wrestle with Calls to Remove Confederate Statues. (Michael Levenson, Boston Globe)

Here are the Confederate Memorials that will be removed after Charlottesville. (Jessica Suerth, CNN)

How The U.S. Got So Many Confederate Monuments. (Becky Little, History)

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Nicole Hannah-Johnson is a reporter for the New York Times who writes domestic stories looking at racial injustices in America.

In this particular article, she uses several features that make a good news story, including data and statistics, first person accounts and evidence from current and historical events in American history. These are articulated in such a way as to add credibility and strength to her arguments and suggests a well thought out response. One aspect that is particularly good is how Hannah-Jones introduces the first person accounts she sourced as evidence, providing information such as their jobs, stances on keys issues, and other facts before quoting their reasoning behind voting for Trump. This gives the reader additional information to see these sources with the necessary contextual evidence which, along with Hannah-Jones’ analysis of what the sources say, enables the reader to form their own conclusions. This encourages debate and discussion about the points made rather than aggressively pushing a specific stance and bias which could disaffect  some readers.

Overall, Nicole Hannah-Jones writes in a concise, to the point way, that makes the article accessible and easy to read, and despite having a clear line of thought and opinion does not alienate those who may have a differing view.

[201603457caic1718-blog]

Learning Contract

On this module, I hope to learn how to approach current news stories from an analytical perspective; coming to an informed opinion that has not been created from the facts presented by potentially biased news sources, but rather from thorough and critically reviewed research. I plan to learn this by engaging with a wider array of news sources, and by unpacking these stories and assessing the cultural and historical contexts that influence these events and the way they are reported.

As a student blogger and journalist, it is my role to present current events and debates in America from an informed, well-researched perspective that can be supported with strong evidence and research. I need to be aware of how news influences people’s opinions, and be confident in the validity of the information that I present in my posts.

Posting to a public platform, and with a restricted word count, I will need to present my ideas in a concise, clear format that is accessible by a larger audience. I have to consider the implications of what I post, and any comments I make on peers work. It will be important to move past my initial reactions to a news story, to investigate the facts behind it and find evidence to support any opinions I put forward. Therefore, this module and the blog should help me develop those skills and allow for informed and intellectual debate on current American events.