Cleveland.com Article

Charles Mosely argues, “the term African-American is a false, divisive racial identifier,” and this is enough explanation. Especially recently, a common debate has erupted between the usage of “black” and “African-American,” however, American Press has identified Black as the proper term. Calling an entire group of people African American takes away their history, their heritage– giving the notion that they have always been “Americans (not slaves).” I agree with Mosely in his argument. Africa is a continent made of hundreds of different nationalities, cultures, etc. To call a mass group “African American”– a majority having nothing to do with true African culture– only separates them. They are black, that’s the color of their skin, but very few are indeed “Africans.” If we were to use this rule for all nationalities, white people would be “European Americans.”

Dallas Morning News Article 

As police increasingly become the public’s focus regarding crimes related to the Black Lives Matter movement, Ted Cruz and his fellow conservatives have used it as a platform to fight against Barack Obama and his handling of the situation. In fact, Cruz stated, ““It’s not an accident that at the funerals of police officers, President Obama is nowhere to be found.” These issues have grown to challenge police authority throughout the nation, and in retaliation, conservatives are calling on President Obama to stand with his police forces, rather than against them.

Washington Post Article

In recent events, a flier was posted at American University’s Law School that said “All Lives Matter,” a statement that caused significant controversy, igniting several reactions. The different reactions across the nation not only exposed the type of student culture that currently exists, but also showed how important the topic of race is in the 21st century. The flier was declared a “very disturbing incident” by the unvirsity, and claimed to promote a white supremacist movement. However, President Obama was pointed out as a user of the term “All Lives Matter,” claiming the importance of every single life and every belief. Personally, I believe that this  flier recieved much more attention than it deserved. Posted as a sign of unification and equality, it became a topic of hate and racism. This only shows how heightened the race topic has become, and to what lengths schools, especially, will go to protect their reputations in regard to the topic and avoid the conversation.

Five Thirty Eight Article

If you ask around, a majority of people always believe that republicans are more racist than democrats. However, a lot of us seem to forget that there are scattered beliefs on both sides. The FiveThirtyEight article gathered data to answer such questions. Clearly, they found that racism does indeed exist in both parties, but the interesting aspect, was that racist followers were only a minority in BOTH GROUPS– something important to note. However, the article also found an increase in racism after President Obama’s two terms, which shows that although racism has declining, having a minority take power was actually a negative aspect, contrary to the ideas of many.

The Root Article

This article is all about the media’s perception of race and crime and how it affects the black community– and how they are treated by law enforcement. Like the Trayvon Martin case, the media skews facts and stories to create a certain public perception, and this often has to deal with the media outlet’s implicit bias- aka Fox News or CNN showing two different sides of the story. The author asks the media to stop reporting bias versions of the story, but instead, help raise awareness for the black community’s issue or report what is really happening.  Obviously, the public is heavily influenced by the media, and so, journalists should be doing what they were meant to: report what’s going on and make a difference, rather than skew their views to make their bias bosses happy.

SPJ Article

In terms of telling the truth, journalists must be transparent. We are the deliverers of news to the public, and it is our job to pass along information that hasn’t been tampered with. By telling the truth, we create a trusting relationship with the public, in this sense we are able to trust that they will believe our information and that they will trust the information we choose to convey to them. At the same time, this relationship is established on a casual basis, speaking to our audience on a personal basis. If this relationship were to be too formal, engagement is unlikely and so, journalists will not be able to form this bond of trust. For Brian Williams, he broke the trust of his audience, and it has taken time for him to rebuild this relationship. He only proves to be an example of what a journalist should not do. We must all follow the same ethics codes and work to form a circle of trust with the public, in order to convey the most prominent and most accurate information possible.

Forbes Article

This article discusses the debate: are bloggers journalists, something to note given our increased reliance on media in reporting. Originally, the founding fathers outlined the first amendment rights that would legally protect journalists and press from the exploitation of politicians and public figures, however, things have evolved. David Coursey notes, “he is right that no single attribute can define who qualifies for special journalistic protection and who does not.” But, in saying so, I personally do not believe that bloggers are able to justify the extremes they go to under the first amendment. In some sense, blogging is a profession in its own, relying fully on people’s opinions and willingness to pursue hardcore journalism. I could easily become a blogger, post my thoughts on the internet and bash our government, but I would not expect to be protected by the freedom of press. This freedom is reserved to those looking to work for their stories, take action, and use traditional mediums– their main goal being to inform, rather than provide an opinion

However, in another sense, acclaimed blogs like the Huffington Post, have evolved into major news outlets, claiming their right to be journalists. Although there remains an obvious bias in their writing, as seen in most blogs, I respect their right to be protected by the constitution. Once a blog or news outlet has grown enough to have international influence and pursue real issues, it has earned the right to be protected in court.

New York Times Articles

As the article states, “Because most laws were written before the Internet existed, they often refer to then-existing media — newspapers, magazines and the like — or simply to “journalists,” without defining who is a journalist.” This applies directly to bloggers in this court case. Reading this article, my opinion about bloggers not being adequately trained to be journalists has changed, soemwhat. The NYT writes that”The rights of free speech and press under the First Amendment does not and cannot depend on the medium through which information is exchanged.” Although I still firmly believe that bloggers cannot claim the same rights (to an extent)- anyone and everyone is able to claim their right to free speech. Still, as Crystal Cox had no affiliation with a proper site or source, she cannot claim her journalistic right in this case. She was not writing for a public outlet, and hence did damage the reputation of the founder and the investment group itself. Although she was working out of genuine journalistic ethic– trying to prove his illegal acts, she had no legal backing and so I stand by the court that has proven her guilty.

In regard to whether or not blogging should rethink the established shield laws, I do think that it is time to change these rules. If coming from an acclaimed source, these blogs are now becoming major news outlets for people on social media– especially young adults. As technology becomes more prevalent in every aspect of life, we and our laws must be adaptive. In the NYT, Stuart Benjamin notes, “Both the costs and benefits of the protections for false statements seem to have increased in the blogging era, and it is not obvious to me which have increased more.” In regards to his statement, even though we cannot prove the extent to which these blogs can be considered real press, we must begin to give their influence the benefit of the doubt. If it’s having an effect on our people, our public opinion, then it deserves to be protected by our civil society.

This topic raises a bigger question, what exactly is a journalist? Ellyn Angelotti of the NYT argues, “Instead of focusing on who is doing the publishing, it is more important than ever to look at how they are doing it.” This is easier said than done. Journalism has been an established profession since the beginnings of our nation, but unfortunately, the definition of the term has evolved in the following centuries. I agree with Ellyn in saying that the idea or definition of the word doesn’t matter, but the quality and fairness of the work that does. Our jobs as bloggers, journalists, politicians, broadcasters, any form of public service is to inform the people. As eras change and evolve, there is no way of pinpointing proper explantions for every career field- and as it changes, we must become more accepting and realize that the importance of the issues is what is actually making headlines- not a court case that defames a profession, whether it be blogging or not.

Columbia Journalism Review Article

“Social media hasn’t just swallowed journalism, it has swallowed everything. It has swallowed political campaigns, banking systems, personal histories, the leisure industry, retail, even government and security.”

This statement alone says it all. As social media has increased, information has traveled and exchanged faster and faster as it grows. These platforms have began to control every aspect of what information is reaches society, and this mobile revolution has put every aspect of our knowledge on the web. Because of this, traditional, hard-hitting journalism has left the building. We now rely on what our computers tells us, than what a reporter or newspaper has to say. Facebook and like media have prompted journalists to switch gears into the internet world, and now, a whole profession has evolved into something unrecognizable. Now, we cannot determine what news will become “worthy” to the public, and that is a scary thought to have.

Pew Reasearch Article 

In a world dominated by media, it is unfortuante to see such an analysis create a miniscule sample in comparison to what is out there. However, I think a lot of college students especially are getting their news ONLY from twitter. Social media outlets have become the bed of all information we obtain, and that has put news outlets in a tough spot. Although this study could not show great results, I am sure that social media news is at least becoming more popular than any other form.

SPJ Ethics Assignment: 

What is the issue:

After Brian Williams mistakenly admitted confusion that his helicopter was hit by ground fire in Iraq, NBC still broadcasted his take. Even after 12 years, Williams is still telling this story, and each time is accused of telling it differently. The issue here is if NBC had the right to broadcast his confusion on an international and influential news network.

Is there a precedent:

No, there is no precedent available for NBC to follow. Rather, it has called into question the ethics of publicizing the false memory of one person across the United States.

Conclusion/Action: 

I believe that ethically, it was appropriate for NBC to televise Williams’ perspective of the event. As the sole person involved, he was the only source available to give any input. But also, he is a broadcaster that is known internationally, and his experiences in Iraq should be shared. That being said, NBC did not knowingly broadcast a false memory. Williams should be given the benefit of the doubt, like Dr. Vox stated, but at the same time, after Williams’ admittance, NBC should have stopped asking him to tell the story. Without concrete evidence of what happens, his experience should be told the first time, in a time of fear, but should not be repeated for years later.

Pew Research Center Article

The research center took several polls to tally support for Charlie Hebdo’s publishing of the crude cartoons against Islam. Yes, this acclaimed satirical paper has often published works against several religions- the pope, jews, etc. However, in an era of increased religious extremism, I, too, find the publishing of such satire to be provocative in nature. I condemn the attacks on Charlie Hebdo to my full extent, but to publish this type of cartoon and not expect backlash is foolish. Islam is already a sensitive subject in this era, and it is completely wrong to publish insulting cartoons about a religion’s prophet. It is important to note that Islam disapproves of drawing/painting pictures of any religious figures- Mohammad, Jesus, Mary, and God alike. Unlike other religions, this rule prohibits the publishing of such satire, and so, Charlie Hebdo is in the wrong. Not only did he insult a people, but also defied a sacred rule of an entire religion.

NPR article

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, many news organizations debated showing the images created by this international phenomenon. With NPR, the New York Times, and other news organizations refusing to post the images, I see that they do understand the effect that the controversy can have. The images are inappropriate, offensive, and harmful. Charlie Hebdo depicted a religion’s prophet naked, mocking his importance within the religion. As they condemn the horrid attacks, they also make it apparent that the publishing of this satire was indeed offensive. I am glad to see news organizations step up and review how much influence these satires can have on a people. Not only did Charlie Hebdo offend practicing Muslims, but also non-whites, those who are all now vulnerable to similar remarks.

NY Times article

Regarding Charlie Hebdo, the NYT states, “it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.” Seeing this, I am pleased. Merely being offended is not grounds for fundamentalists to murder anyone. Although Hebdo created controversy by posting rather crude images, it was not appropriate to react in such a way. We, as a world, need to learn to handle our anger with respect, to state our opinions and move on. I do, however, believe that Charlie Hebdo created these images at a controversial time, acting as an instigator. They didn’t “ask for it,” per say, but would have been foolish to expect no reaction at all. I am extremely against the attacks and I stand with the victims, but it is important to see how religion can affect the actions of others.

Columbia Journalism Review article

Besides the issue of protection for gay and lesbian rights, an issue in the Indiana media arises when the media gets blamed for coverage of the event. Noted in the article, the statehouse now has significantly less coverage at all times of the year. Especially in politics, it is apparent to continuously cover news. It is the journalist’s job to keep the public up to date on what their government is doing. To slack off on this job gives a bad reputation to journalists all around the world. Like many governments, these states blame this “perception problem” on the media and its news coverage, and to some extent, journalists are to blame. However, governments are quick to blame the media for their own shortcomings, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Although unlikely, I would like to see a balance created between the press and government.

Think Progress article

In this new era where out right racism is frowned upon, we have started to mask our prejudices by using religion. As I read about the effects of religious liberty in justifying racism against LGBTQ members, I am angered. At its base, religion, in all its forms, calls for peace, respect, and acceptance. Never has a religion like Catholicism or Islam essentially called for hatred and violence against those who are not deemed acceptable. I am astonished by the idea that some people have to bend religion at their will to back up their, often twisted, social beliefs. I am sick of reading about religion justifying anger and hatred, especially on a day like today where ISIS has used its so called “religion” to murder innocent bystanders in Belgium. This racism against these innocent people in Arizona is only the beginning of a bigger issue that they’re creating, and if it continues, like racism against muslims for the past decade, we will face terrorism and extremism on their part as well.

NPR- abuse scandal article

The sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is horrendous. For these religious leaders, so called protectors of faith and its followers, to be involved in this sexual violence is sickening. For me, the most important part is when the article says, “People have become more willing to question and challenge major institutions in our society, and that goes for journalists, as well.” This quote embodies what our world, government, and media have come to. Being so intertwined in a global setting, news travels fast, and for this I am grateful. With greater amounts of information, journalists and normal people are facing more hard-hitting questions that need to be answered. To truly make a difference and get the news out, we cannot allow large insitutions like the Vatican to stand in the way of our journalistic duty. I am glad to see a more fearless society arise, we need to be able to ask the tough questions and demand answers– this is the only way we can expose such crimes and hopefully prevent coverups like this one.

Poytner article: ABC v. Food Lion

In the case concerning the ABC and Food lion debate, the conversation strayed from the morality, or lack there of, of Food lion’s employees to the ABC journalist’s themselves– those who went to great lengths undercover, manipulating the company and their peers, for the sake of a story. Although these journalists have an active duty to keep the public aware of what’s happening, this is ethically wrong. In many cases, ethics depend on the situation– especially when a journalist is considering to go undercover to get their facts. For this case, it was wrong for the journalists to act in this manner, as there are multitudes of other ways to get the same fact. For example, many grocery store employees are not the biggest supporters of their jobs, and would easily give details on the story, investigation in itself would be research enough. Here, ABC had good intentions, but the tactics used to uncover Food Lion’s wrong doings were unethical in nature.

American Journalism Review article 

Another article on confidentiality in journalism arises, as ethics are more addressed in a case rather than the morality of the crimes committed. In this case, undercover journalism was used to explain the extent to which lying can improve or decrease the faith of the audience in a story. The article explains two instances where a journalist should use these tactics: 1) When there is no other way to uncover the truth and 2) when the jounralist will disclose to all parties what exactly occured in the process. In cases like Silversteins, he failed to disclose his actions, tactics, and motives, which gives an unfaithful light to the situation. He calls into question the audience’s trust in journalism, if he was willing to lie, who was he willing to lie to?

NY Times: ABC v. Food Lion 

Once again talking about the ethical boundaries of journalists rather than the actions of the food company, NYT brings a piece of new information to the table, noting that the jury was asked to see what was revealed to be true, ignore the hidden camera footage, and merely focus on the lies told by journalists. In this case, the court painted the journalists as liars, focusing the case and the jury on this idea. In seeing this, we begin to see if  the law is as important as uncovering the truth.

Columbia Journalism Review article

Here, the columbia journalism review covers the ethics of undercover journalism, which sets the precedent for all journalists who are looking to use this tactic. Undercover journalism is used to uncover issues that have been hiding from the public, issues that are vital to public safety, health, knowledge, etc. Yes, investigative journalists have been using this tactic for ages, but for present day journalists, this hurts ethical boundaries. With a variety of different tactics available to us, going undercover should be a last resort tactic, one that is only used when absolutley necessary. There are two sides to using this tactic: either the public is unable to recieve the whole truth, or the ethics of the journalist will be questioned.

Zacchini v. Scripps

this case decided that the press did not have the right to post a performer’s act in the media without the performer’s consent or patent. The federal issue showed a violation of the performer’s 1st and 14th amendment rights and addressed privacy issues, especially since the broadcast could have an effect on their economic status. A journalist airing the human cannonball on television without the right presents the performance to the mass media and ruins the performer’s chance to monopolize on and make a living off of the performance.

Poytner article: 

In the article, David Shedden adresses Edward Morrow’s landmark speech regarding journalist’s and their potential influence on soceity. The greatest, most remembered quote would be: “This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it’s nothing but wires and lights in a box….”

As i read the transcript, I can only think of the power a journalist holds in this era, and the coming ones. We are the peope’s gateway to opinion, knowledge, and power in a time that has continously screwed over the “little people.” Journalists have the power to build up or destroy anyone or anything, but, as Morrow explains, it is only a matter of having the will to do so. We must take the power that our profession has provided for us, and use it to help, to inspire, to teach, and to be the good guys in a realm full of villains. We must be confidenet in our writing, our reporting, and have the ability to do what journalism was meant to do with such power. I love this speech.

NY Times Article: 

The article is about The Las Vegas Review-Journal, a famous newspaper that was bought out by big time Casino owner, Sheldon Adelson. In purchasing the paper, he not only forgoes the unbiased rationale of journalism, but also creates a sort of empire on the entire press scene of Las Vegas, settinge examples for moguls, like himself, to do the same. With a history of aggressively pursuing his own interests, he risks the entire fair news value of the paper, with only his writers and editors left to defy his power. Involved in a case against his gambling company, he has now began to censor with the paper and his jounralists may publish, adding a new layer to his monopolization of the press.

For me, this is a  conversation of ethics. Why would we allow these billionaires to purchase newspapers and magazine companies, regardless of the effect it will have on the value of our news. I am proud to see the journalists that have stepped up agains this will, and fought for their right to bring fair news to their audience. Adelson attempts to restrict coverage about himself and the lawsuit, which greatens the necessity. What does this man have to hide? With a liberal leaning, the paper defies the republican attributes of Adelson, and so, his purchase will puncture its national reputation for his own benefit. Here, we see the extent to which money can hurt such a prestigious industry, as our ability to write and influence our audience can now be barracaded by a billionaire’s personal motives.

Politico Article

Once again, this article is about Sheldon Alderson’s attempt to control the press in a new age. As a billionaire, buying the newspaper allows him to promote his republican views in the press, having the power to shift the focus of news. Important to note that the paper runs on advertisements placed by casinos to finance its expenses. Despite his claim for power in this manner, politico magazine notes that the plutocrat’s ability to control a city or region by buying their news outlet has decreased significantly. With the rise of bloggers and social media, the family has recieved great amounts if criticism, and with their secret purchase of the paper, have become the source of the stories, something Alderson was attempting to avoid by purchasing the paper.

In reading politico’s stance, I’ve been introduced to a new view. It’s interesting to see that these once major tactics in controlling the press have now dwindled to practically nothing. Yes, the paper might be publishing right-leaning news from now on, but the backlash it has been recieving by bloggers and major social media platforms has outweighed any power Alderson hoped to take. When it comes to gaining (and maintaining) an audience is now faced with a competition that he can never win. The world of online press has turned against him, and so he can no longer win. The magazine said it best, “The Adelsons have purchased a wonderful toy that the culture won’t ever let them play with.”

CNN: Money Article

With all the major news organizations getting in on the action, CNN had to have its say on Alderson too. CNN reported that after two weeks of being purchased by the billionaire family, the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s top editor had stepped down. With many of the paper’s writers claiming that the Alderson’s are the wrong owners for the paper, the editor’s resignation came at an interesting time. Many of the jouralists assure the audience that their owners are skewing coverage, after having fought hard to get a quote removed from the paper. This is just beginning of a long fight for them.

Reading yet another article about this issue shows me the influence that media and press have on people. 20 years ago, a billionaire buying out a paper may have reached headlines, but it would not have created such controversy. I believe that as we have grown, we have gained a better sense of the meaning of freedom of speech and freedom of press. Instead of straying from these traditional values, we have fought for them harder than ever. We, as a population of journalists, have a greater awareness of what it means to deliver news to the world in an era full of controvery, corrution, and negativity. This issue merely struck the edge of such a controversial time in media.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Evidence: several students planned to wear black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam and mourn the dead on all sides. School officials quickly adopted a no-armband rule, but the students wore them anyways. Students were then suspended for violating school policy, students sued claiming violation of First Amendment rights.

Issue: Whether school officials can censor non-violent student speech without showing that the speech will cause disruption of school educational activities or collide with the rights of others.

Precedent: This case set the precedent for other first amendment cases: “This case will help usher in ‘a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the judiciary. . . I wish, therefore, wholly to disclaim any purpose on my part to hold that the Federal Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.” (Justice Hugo Black)

Conclusion/outcome: 7-2 vote, Court ruled that schools cannot censor non-violent student speech if they cannot prove a disruption to educational activities or a violation of the rights of others. Apprehension of disturbance or offence is not enough. Court made it clear that students do not lose their constitutional rights in school. The duty of schools to maintain a safe environment should not contradict with the students’ free expression of rights.

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=404

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts:

Evidence of the case: Curtis Publishing Company printed an article accusing Butts, coach of the University of Georgia’s football team, of fixing a Georgia-Alabama game in 1962. Butts is said to have given Alabama’s coach information crucial to Georgia’s offensive strategy. After seeing the article, Butts sued Curtis Publishing and was awarded a total of $90,000. After the NYT v. Sullivan case, however, Curtis Publishing (the defendant) requested a new case, which was denied because both figures were not public officials.

The issue: “Do the constitutional safeguards required under New York Times v. Sullivan apply to a public figure who is not a public official?” These figures are known in the media and everyday culture, and thus have the power to affect change, BUT do they deserve the same protection/rights as “officials?”

The precedent: in this case, there is no “rule” or precedent to base the case off of. The supreme court ended up taking a “hands-off” approach in dealing with statements that were made by mistake. the NYT case was used as precedent for some time, but the court found no distinction between a public official and public figure.

The evidence of this case fits the precedent, as Sullivan filed a libel case against NYT, who was said to have printed inaccurate allegations against his motives, referring to MLK Jr. In the supreme court, NYT won, as Sullivan was a public official, and so, the right to free press applied. In this case however, NYT v. Sullivan was specifically used in Curtis Publishing’s favor. Although those involved were not public officials, it was found that public figures have significant pull in the public sphere, giving Curtis Publishing a right to publish, even a mistake, as a right of free press.

Conclusion: The Court took a hands-off approach, unable to agree on the difference between a public official and figure. The right to free press did hold up, however, proving no real winner. Personally, I don’t believe the outcome fit, public figures have significant pull in the public sector, often more so than a government official– and so, the same courtesy taken in NYT v. Sullivan should be extended to cases like this one.

New York Times v. Sullivan

The case is about a full-page advert in the New York Times that claimed that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s arrest was a part of a campaign to destroy his effort’s towards race and black voting rights. Sullivan filed a libel action against the Times ad and four ministers who were said to be its sponsors. Sullivan won a $500 thousand dollar judgement, as defence that the advert was truthful was unavailable.  Upon entering the Supreme Court, the case collapsed as they held that under the First Amendment, the publication of ALL statements about public officials are legal. The Court was unanimous on the vote, as “public discussion is a political duty.” The Court also declared that Alabama’s libel law created some form of “self-censorship” by reporters that did not uphold the First Amendment.

The issue of NYT v. Sullivan concern both freedom of speech and press, both of which are protected by the First Amendment of the constitution. Sullivan claimed that this ad was false and used against him, which in Alabama, followed a libel law at the time. Despite his claim, the paper did not create the ad with knowledge of falsity or with plain recklessness. The final verdict showed Sullivan as the loser, allowing people to speak freely in the South, especially regarding the political Race issues of the time.

Like any political issues, extrinsic issues were a large part of the entire case. During MLK’s fight for equality, race and inequality were perhaps the biggest issues in the United States, especially during the 1960’s. The idea that four, Black reverends were involved in the creation of the ad definitely heightened the state of Alabama’s interest in proving Sullivan’s case. By rewarding him, Alabama infringed on  basic rights provided by the constitution, which stems from its conservative, racist Southern character. The case was one fought against race and the arrival of an integrated United States, which heightened the case’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Although Alabama’s court deemed the case libel, in Sullivan’s favour, the Supreme Court ruled against Sullivan, upholding the constitution’s call for freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Personally, I see this case as a mere race issue. If the advert had concerned a war issue or fight against labor laws, it would not have received nearly as much backlash. The court’s decision was definitely the right one, without proving Sullivan guilty, the entire structure of our country and its laws could have been completely altered. This is even more relevant today, as terrorist accusations and prejudice against different nationalities and religion are becoming more violent and vocal everyday. Here, we see history repeating itself in a way, and I hope that freedom of speech and press continue to protect our citizens.

Media Shift Article

A technique and checklist was developed to reduce journalist errors in writing, reporting, editing, etc, as a checklist is the most “effective way of preventing errors.” Checklist found here: http://mediashift.org/2015/02/journalism-professors-should-teach-accuracy-checklists/. Journalist’s must be able to ensure accuracy, and I too believe that lists can help us do exactly what we’re supposed to.

USA Today Article 

In this new age, it is increasingly important to produce facts and content fast, but unfortunately, this has affected the accuracy of our news. Most of all, this has created an issue of libel, defamation, and the spread of lies because we are producing news quickly without fact checking, thinking we are able to correct it once we have the entire story. This leads to a frightening future for journalism. As we hide behind loopholes in defamation laws, à la Google and Facebook, we are ignoring a huge issue in US policy for the purpose of getting the news out first. Personally, I agree with this article, speed is not worth the spread of inaccurate representation, which can lead to huge issues when real, hard-hitting news arises.

Poytner Article

As humans, we are prone to mistakes, but what is great is that we have the power to correct them and make our point. Especially in journalism, however, preventing these mistakes is vital to our survival as the fourth estate of government. Preventing and correcting our mistakes helps build a healthy relationship with the public, and build trust as fair, useful reporters of what’s going on. The bottom line of this article is that if we cannot prevent a mistake, making the correction is vital to both ourselves and our audience. Personally, I appreciate when news outlets make corrections, identifying what they did wrong and are doing their job to keep their audience informed. This puts news outlets in good standing in regards to public opinion and keeps their reputations stable as well.

In this article from Rolling Stone, the UVA rape culture is brought to a new light. After years of cover-ups and silence, Jackie, a victim of assault at the university, finally speaks out about her horrendous experience. As she shares her story, the article exposes the great lengths that many university’s are willing to take in order to save their reputation. UVA, nicknamed the rape school or UVrApe, has been known to shield the public from several issues of sexual assault, and, unfortunately, has failed to protect its’ students from this rape culture on campus.

As the fraternity is put under investigation, readers are put under the impression  that the university is simply failing to take sexual assault and rape issues seriously. Rolling Stone argues against the manner in which university’s are handling rape culture. It is shocking to see that the emotional and physical pain of a student is not being taken seriously. The university is repeatedly saving its reputation, not admitting that there is an issue, all at the risk of its students. A horrendous aspect of the education system today. However, the university is not the only one to blame, as sexual assault has increasingly become a problem at all universities today. Students cannot be expected to always behave on their nights out, but due to the handling of this rape culture, it has become even more difficult for women, especially, to speak out about their own experiences. Every weekend, assaults are happening on college campuses around the country, but the social relevance and result of the issue constantly hinders the prospect for change.

In reading this article, it is apparent that Rolling Stone identifies with Jackie’s struggle, speaking out against the University of Virginia. The article shows their disgust with the situation and rape culture as a whole. Fortunately, this article is geared towards all universities, using this example to warn other students and promote an end to these types of situations. Personally, I am appalled to hear about this case. Often times, sexual assault remains a silent topic, even though we know it is constantly happening. I believe that these situations NEED to be exposed and brought to students’ attention. In order to stop this issue, we must ban together as a student body. If one of my friends had experienced such a horrendous thing, my first reaction would be to notify the school and police, NOT stop her from telling her story, like Jackie’s “friends.” I see that sexual assault is a complex subject, often affecting the victim’s reputation. We, as a university, need to understand that victims of assault are strong, we must stand behind them and protect each other.

On another note, however, Columbia Journalism Review later went on to prove the “avoidable errors” committed by Rolling Stone in this article– that attachment to and trust in Jackie hindered the ability to fact check or even prove the occurrence of the entire event. Not to say that Jackie has not experienced assault, but having trusted one source, due to the emotional aspect of the issue, kept Erdely from truly proving any of the evidence. This article also exposes a university’s inability to truly believe a female victim of rape– usually having little to no evidence, mostly due to the party culture of colleges nowadays. This article appears as a warning to journalists willing to cover campus rape, as unreliable sources and too much trust can create a situation that is both unfair and discrediting to many parties involve. In many cases like this, journalists forget the rules they must abide by– sources, fact-checks, and hard evidence– so as to save everyone involved from a tainted reputation.

The Columbia Journalism Review argues the lack of professional journalism in Rolling Stone’s article on campus sexual assault. The writer warns, “of all crimes, rape is perhaps the toughest to cover,” and so, must be done very carefully. We, as humans, are prone to sensitivity when it comes to our victims, but this can often lead to inaccuracy in our writings. As journalists, the review tells us to learn to separate between our emotions and our professional techniques– “problems arise when the terms of the compact between survivor and journalist are not spelled out.” Even more, a victim’s version of the story can never be truly fact-checked, there is always the potential for exaggeration and inaccuracy to make the situation more “plausible.” In the entire article, the journal stresses the importance of learning to separate the personal and professional reactions to sexual assault- being careful about who we are affecting in our reporting of such a complex experience.

As an individual, I was horrified after reading Rolling Stone’s article, heart-broken that a fellow college student was treated this way. Erdely’s writing provoked emotion and anger towards the rape culture known on college campus’s these days– just as intended. However, as a journalist, there are obvious issues. Reading Columbia journalism review’s argument helped me identify the do’s/dont’s of journalism when it comes to these types of crimes. There is a thin line that can easily be crossed, which Erdely’s errors have shown.