The interview of Eng Yang and Kao Kalia Yang was conducted very aggressively. The fact that Yang’s account was dismissed and criticized as purely “hearsay” contradicts their reason to come and talk about the matter as a whole.While the beginning of the podcast was executed well by introducing professionals and giving background information on the matter,  things got ugly once Krulwich began to interview Eng and Kao. Eng Yang felt very strongly about the Yellow Rain that was killing lives left and right, but the lack of interest made it impossible for him to do anything about it. He felt that Radiolab’s coverage was an opportunity to bring the news to more ears. However, his story was discredited and attacked for his lack of evidence. Rather than suggesting alternative possibilities, the host continues to attack his claims by bringing in scientific evidence, much of which could have been introduced in a more professional and respectful manner.

There was a comment that resonated with me in the Poynter article that stated, “Imagine if Krulwich sat down with a holocaust survivor and disputed their story. Obviously, it’s important to get the facts right (whether it was bees is an interesting question), but the Radiolab team didn’t understand the centrality of this story to the people they were interviewing.” I feel that while it is the job of Radiolab to get all the facts straight and rely on professionals, to discredit and dismiss your source is something else. To make an attack on Eng’s recalling of the events as mere “hearsay” was very unprofessional and could easily have been avoided. If they introduced the scientific disputes to Eng Yang from the start and asked what he thought about them, I feel as if they could have avoided the emotional chaos that took over.

The article on Serena Williams’ body image received a great deal of criticism, claiming that Ben Rothenberg was attacking Serena Williams’ image by citing sexist remarks made by other tennis players. Although I did not feel that the article was nearly as offensive as people criticized it to be, I personally felt that Mr. Rothenberg was not being sensitive enough. The fact that he practically pit Serena Williams against a number of other tennis athletes who were against large muscles or the like, seemed like a mistake. He should have been more careful to organize the article to help build her image rather than question it.

On the other hand, James Hannaham was criticized for his use of sterotypes to build the image of Taye Diggs. While Mr. Hannaham’s intent was obviously one of praise and admiration, he was also stated to have intentionally used stereotypes to drive his article. I felt that this was very questionable as he could have chosen a much more careful approach and garnered the same results. I feel that the article took the sensitivity of covering race and sexuality too lightly in his depiction and generalizations.

Journalists in Syria face a great deal of possible danger and harm without any guaranteed compensation. Many journalists are not properly insured and often times lack a dependable means of communication. Due to the very limited funding or salaries of the journalists, often freelancers, they have not been professionally trained to deal with medical emergencies. Journalists need to create personal connections with locals in order to get more information and sources, but also for their own protection. Journalists in Syria face a constant threat while reporting.

However, despite all these potential dangers, the news media is still held responsible for delivering accurate and reliable coverage of all the happenings in Syria. People need to be informed about what is going on in Syria and the only means of doing so is through news media. News organizations often use the limited resources they have to get people to report in Syria. This, despite man of its faults, allows people to understand the absurdities taking place in Syria from the comfort of their homes.

While reporters are constantly backing away from Syria, journalists need to continue to report on the happenings in Syria. In order to bring change, we need to be informed on the subject matter. We need to understand the needs of Syria in order to effectively take action.

Listening to Bob’s description and breakdown of how news organizations cover news, politics in specific, was very interesting to say the least. He was able to break down how news organizations got things done and the ups and downs of being a part of different organizations. While some news organizations are constantly working towards developing higher ratings and increasing their views, other organizations, such as NY1, work towards keeping the loyal viewers that they already have. I always assumed news organizations prioritized quantity over quality because they needed to constantly increase their viewer ratings. However, I came to realize that news organizations work tirelessly to cover events to be accurate, detailed, and appealing.

While I feel the news coverage of the debate was spot on, the actual debate lacked quality. News organizations provided constant updates and quotes to inform readers what was going on. However, the actual debate seemed to be for people to enjoy rather than for people to learn from. The debate was a means of entertainment for viewers. That being said, the news organization did provide great coverage of the ‘political’ event. My opinion on political news coverage did change, in a more positive light. Despite the heavy bias many news organizations hold in regards to political standing, many news organizations work towards providing the whole picture for their viewers and I appreciate that. I feel that political news coverage is a very difficult subject to tackle and that people should give credit where credit is due.

While I believe that the Times was criticized for the right reasons (lack of evidence behind their claims, lack of proof behind ads, etc…), Bernstein pushes his claims too much on grounds where he lacks the same credibility. Bernstein claims that the article did not provide enough evidence to prove the validity of the newspaper ad listings showing wages as low as ten dollars. He then proceeds to show how he was unable to find any of these listings in the newspapers he looked into. Despite the lack of solid, clear-cut evidence in the Times article, Bernstein’s claims are based on very limited or inapplicable resources. For example, he attempts to disprove the validity of the article by claiming the inaccuracy of the data Sarah Maslin Nir used by citing reports from the Department of State Inspections, when in fact, the expose was citing the Department of Labor statistics. Micael Luo’s rebuttal to the rebuttal piece continues to criticize Bernstein by providing all the proof and documents Bernstein claims were absent or incorrect in the expose such as the newspaper ads, interviews, and statistical reports. While I feel that Bernstein had a solid basis to his claims, he was unable to critique the expose effectively. The overall tone of the rebuttal sounded as if he was bitter about the generalizations Sarah made because they were not the way his wife’s salons were. The Times should have cited their sources more clearly and provided all the documents and statistics they refer to in order to avoid the criticism they received.

Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” approaches the issue by focusing on the actual meat quality and process, while Eric Schlosser’s “Fast Food Nation” focuses on the brutal working environment and corruption behind the factories. Both authors attack the meat-packing industry for its corruption and abuse of both the animals and its workers. “The Jungle” generates a great deal of negative emotions based on the fact that people were being deceived into eating a mixture of spoiled meats, rats, poop, and a lot of other harmful things. However, “Fast Food Nation” makes its readers pity the abuse and chaos the factory workers had to endure. The workers, often times immigrants unable to speak for themselves, were made into machines. They were not properly insured and had to work until their bodies gave out.

While both authors write about many of the same things, their approach is very different. Sinclair decides to make a fictional novel based on fact, Schlosser interviews many of the workers and provides firsthand testimonies. Sinclair was quite successful in exposing the abuses, despite a bit of questionable credibility due to his work being a fictional novel. Schlosser was very successful in exposing abuse because his information was directly from the workers within the factories as well as his own tour of the factory.

The Times completely blew the story of Hillary Clinton’s email usage out of proportion because of the fact that they did not check the credibility of the resources they were using. Due to the competitive nature of news organizations trying to report on stories as quickly as possible, The Times published a piece on Hillary Clinton as soon as they received information about her email usage. They did not bother to confirm the information they received and labeled her usage as “criminal” activity. This was a big mistake on their part, but there was also the fact that the edits made to their reports were not noted. They did not bother to own up to their mistake until much later on. They not only put their credibility on the line, but also threatened to hurt Hillary Clinton’s image.

Despite the competitive nature of news reporting, The Times should have prioritized the accuracy of the information they were dealing with. They also should have taken a more cautious approach with their wording, especially because they did not confirm the details of the story. Using words such as “criminal” may help get more viewers, but it was simply not true in this case.

News organizations did the right thing by releasing the documents provided to them by Edward Snowden. The actions taken by the NSA were an obvious violation of our right to privacy. If news organizations did not publish the documents provided to them, they would not have fulfilled their duty as reporters and journalists. The documentary portrays the NSA as actively keeping an eye on a large number of individuals. The NSA went as far as getting information from mobile service companies such as Verizon to obtain information. The article describes Snowden’s actions as suicide. If a person is willing to risk his life in order for news organizations to shed light on a matter such as this, it only makes sense for news organizations to put their best foot forward and release the documents to the best of their abilities. The documents were not necessarily detrimental to the government in the sense the publics knowledge of the NSA’s actions does not actually reveal who or what they are keeping an eye on. The reports only reveal our invasion of privacy, not the specific details, which might put certain people in danger. Reporting and releasing the documents is the responsibility of the news organizations as it keeps the government in check.