sonianoel99-blog1

[sonianoel99-blog1]

Journalsim: Then and Now

For decades, print journalism has been the basis for current events, information, and political news. In the recent years, this field has experienced remarkable transformations in their content due to internet and digital technology. Before, journalism was mainly composed of print, it then transitioned into television broadcasts and radio. However, today, news is heavily viewed virtually. Television journalism has now evolved through the social media plat forms. News videos are linked to websites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other personal blogs. Because many news reporting industries are challenged with traditional journalism, they have adapted to the concept of digital media. Journalism industries are more likely to thrive with the use of social media, because it is more appealing and convenient for their audience: the millennials. Nowadays, people want news instantly.

 In All The President’s Men, a movie regarding the Watergate Scandal, it demonstrates all aspects of outdated journalism: slammed doors, repeated rejections, the usage of type writers, and the long process of making headlines. That being said, the work environment was chaotic; investigative journalists Woodward and Bernstein were keeping endless notes on napkins as they traveled from door to door interviewing members involved in the Watergate Scandal. Because there was no verification of the quotes they were using, they received many accusations and threats from those they interviewed, despite the fact that their quotes were truthful. When The Washington Post was accused of ���non-truthful” quotations on national television, the company practically lost its reputation. It took a long and daunting process of uncovering the scandal to regain their high standing name. In modern Journalism, issues like this can be quickly solved. The interviews would be recorded and journalist would be more prepared for the interview process. They are trained to have qualified sources which are clearly verified by the person(s) they are interviewing, before making any efforts to publish their work. Nevertheless, modern journalism is still flawed with the idea of “fake news.” Yet, the interview process and writing process has become much easier and faster with modern day technology.

 On another note, on Friday, October 6th, I was given the opportunity to go on a tour of The Washington Post with George Mason’s Society of Professional Journalists. After watching the movie, All The President’s Man, the changes in the journalism process were clear. For instance, inside the facility, all the desks were clean, and there were multiple televisions playing national news as well as showing basic statics and demographics of issues that need covering.  Although The Washington Post is print journalism, their efforts to bring virtual reports to their readers is growing. For example, today, The Washington Post has roughly five broadcast journalists that use Facebook live and other applications for mobile devices. Their intent is to appeal to their technology favored viewers. This conversion is crucial to the survival of print journalism companies. In fact, The Washington Post, it-self, almost lost business. However, after the owner of Amazon Jeff Bezos bought the company, The Washington Post is doing improving again. According to Washington Post reporters, Bezos brought new and improved ideas (like broadcast journalism) to The Washington Post so it can continue to thrive.

 So the big question is: Will you continue to buy print or will you continue to adapt to the new and improving digital media?

[sonianoel99-blog1]

Who doesn't love stereotypes?

If I listen to country music does that make me a red-neck? If I'm a woman should I be pro-choice? If I voted for Trump does that make me a “white supremacist”? If I’m Arab does that make me muslim? Better yet, if I'm muslim does that make me a terrorist? 

Well I got a question for you, when do I get to decide?

[sonianoel99-blog1]

Pro Life or Pro-Choice? U decide...

[Pro-choice] The act of abortion should be a decision made by the mother. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court. Women should have control over their own bodies. If a woman decides to end their pregnancy, it should not be considered murder. Unborn babies are not independent human-beings; therefore, the termination of baby’s birth is the ending of a pregnancy, not a baby’s life. Moreover, the idea of women granting their own reproductive choices is empowering. She is given the opportunity to control her own future. The termination of a pregnancy is between the mother and her fetus, it should not be a decision determined by the government or faith.  

 [Pro Choice] The act of abortion is against the values of the church and is essentially the sinful killing of an innocent human being.  Abortion is murder and should not be thought of as otherwise. In America, all humans are given the right to life; the killing of an infant is the elimination of this right and a violation to the Christian faith. In fact, the bible does not distinguish between fetuses and babies; therefore, an unborn baby is still a human being. On another note, abortion decreases the number of adoptable babies. Instead of women ending a human life due to financial instability or unplanned pregnancies, they should give their unwanted baby to those who cannot conceive.  Essentially, women should take responsibility for their own actions, regardless if the pregnancy was intentional or not. An unborn baby should not be punished for someone else’s wrong doing.

[sonianoel99-blog1]

Is being rich really that bad?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/being-rich-wrecks-your-soul-we-used-to-know-that/2017/07/28/7d3e2b90-5ab3-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.21ef103ba7c8

My response to the following article: 

In recent discussions regarding the upper class and their characteristics that destroy their soul, a controversial issue has been whether these upper-class peoples are indeed egocentric. On the other hand, some argue that they are equal to the majority when it comes to this fear. From this perspective, according to the article, “Jesus didn’t exactly go easy on the rich, either.”  On the other hand, however; due to their lack of compassion for those who are not on the same social statues as them, others argue that the rich tend to do the most damage to society. In the words of Charles and Evan Sandsmark Mathewes, one of this view’s main proponents are, “middle America,” or the majority. According to this view, the rich are “despicable characters” that “shoplift and cheat” and “take candy that is meant for children.” In sum, the issue is whether the rich are self-absorbed individuals with little care of the world, or helpful soles that are misunderstood.

My own view is that the article is one big generalization of rich people. Though I concede that the upper class can be entitled due their large amounts of wealth and high status, I still maintain that this is not always the case. They can be helpful in society due to their, in most cases, rich education and ability to donate in large quantities. For example, according to Zeveloff’s article, Billionaire George Soros (net worth of $22 billion) is the founder of Open Society Foundations, which was made to encourage human rights organizations and democratic institutions. Using his education and wealth, he was able to create a foundation for the greater good. Although some might object that rich people are beneficial people, I would reply that, just like any topic: politics, gender, or race controversies, one cannot assume that all groups are bad, or even good.  In other words, just like not all republicans are racist and not all Arabs are terrorists, not all rich people are “despicable characters.” This common theme of assumption, judgment, and hatred that is wish-washing the minds of people today.

   Works Cited   

 Mathews, Charles and Evan Sandsmark. “Being rich wrecks your soul. We used to know    that.” The Washington Post, 28 July, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/being-rich -wrecks-your-soul-we-used-to-know-that/207/07/28/7d3e2b90-5ab3-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.01894cf9e395.  

 Zeveloff, Julie. “25 Super Rich People Who Use Their Money To Help The World.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 1 Nov. 2011, www.businessinsider.com/most-generous-biggest-philanthropists-occupy-wall-street-2011-10?op=1%2F#t-denny-sanford-23. 

[sonianoel99-blog1]

What's the Role of a Journalist?

What major television station do you watch?  What radio station do you tune into?  Which newspaper do you grab?  What social media do you open?  Media comes in many forms. But who provides us this media content? The journalist.

Giving the most basic definition, journalists deliver the news to the people via TV, newspapers, phone applications, or other social medias. They research, write, and report on events that impact the people locally and worldwide. The idea of journalism has evolved tremendously over the years due to modern day technology. People now have easier access to the news; nevertheless, it also gives people easy access to state their opinions. That being said, it is the role of a journalist to deliver the news in the most neural way possible. Based on the information they deliver, it is up to the people to develop their own beliefs.  

The role of a journalist is to capture all sides of an issue in the media. A journalist interviews important individuals (ex. mayors, executives, or politicians), witnesses, and people involved in the event. This gives the public an idea of what the event was like so they are able to develop their own opinion on the issue. A journalist must find and report the news. They are constantly keeping up with the news and looking for stories to share with the public. They usually have a broad range of interests, so their stories and audience are not minimal. In other words, they work for the people.

Even though a journalist’s purpose is to deliver the facts to the people, this is not always the case. It is not uncommon for a journalist to share their opinions explicitly or unintentionally (ex. body language) when delivering the news. Though this goes against journalism ethics, if a news topic seems morally wrong to the journalist, they will usually add their own commentary. On another note, some journalists forge news to make it sound more appealing to their audience. For example, some news stations are known to be more liberal or conservative; therefore, liberals will listen to the liberal stations and vice versa. In my opinion, this method of journalism is immoral. It is not the role of a journalist to spark unnecessary debates. These “liberal” and “conservative” news stations are instigating fights in the public. In sum, journalists have a psychological impact on the public. They should use their power to impact the world positively, rather than carelessly.  

A journalist is human. All humans have opinions, backgrounds, and beliefs. Therefore, a journalist is bound to share their opinion with the people. The next time you are watching TV, listening to the radio, reading the paper, or browsing social media think about the content being said and how it is being delivered.  Journalist can and will be biased.