I believe that at the beginning the interview started out fairly well. We got a good description of the situation and the process of investigating the yellow rain. The interviewers went into great detail about where and how the leaves and twigs were tested for chemicals. When it came to Eng’s description of the event, they made it seem as though a child was telling a folktale. They seemed to brush off his account, especially because they never went into detail about Eng’s description of the yellow rain falling and people and animals falling ill simultaneously. Although that may have been untrue and the interviewers explanation of people being ill from other causes could definitely be true, they don’t make an effort to explain that as much as they made an effort to explain the research experts had done on the yellow rain. The reporters definitely had a responsibility to be sensitive to their sources. These were not people that were simply regurgitating facts. They were people that went through an extremely hard time and were trying to share what they knew. Whether or not this information was deemed inaccurate by experts should not make a difference in how Eng and his niece were treated. I think by going into the same detail as they did with the information the experts presented would have done angles story justice. Explaining every aspect thoroughly and making sure we knew why or why not the information was true and treating the two sources with the same respect as the experts would have made this podcast much more credible and respectable.

After hearing from our guest speaker last week, my faith in news organizations was restored. It was obvious that he tried to keep his coverage as neutral as possible, reporting on most events and sticking to the facts instead of going off on an opinionated tangent, as so many news organizations do. I come from a conservative family, so Fox news is usually on in my house. I tend to not watch debates because I feel as though its a bunch of people spewing slightly different versions of the same thing for hours on end. That being said, I actually found this debate to be entertaining and the moderators to be rude and unprofessional. A debate is supposed to be informative for voters, but all that CNBC was doing was trying to cause conflict between the candidates. All that ended up happening was not the candidates conflicting with each other, but conflicting with the moderators and calling them out on their poor execution. I understand that this was done for ratings, but viewers were just as disappointed in how the debate was conducted.

In the end, I think everything depends on where you choose to get your news from. If you watch channels like Fox or CNBC, you are going to get an obvious bias. If you go to channels like NY1, where our guest speaker, Robert, works, you are going to get more fact based and straight forward news. They do not need to compete for ratings so their information comes from an honest place. We live in an age where everything is about entertainment and success in numbers, which is why I understand why the debate went how it did. I believe it is our responsibility to form our own educated opinions by keeping track of all sides of the story and going to sources on both ends of the spectrum. I don’t think trusting just one news source will ever work in today’s society when so many of them are obviously bias.

I do feel as though the New York Times was fairly criticized for their piece on nail salons. When you read the first rebuttal, it is obvious that there is critical information that was left out by Ms. Nir, especially when it comes to wages listed in advertisements. Mr. Bernstein’s rebuttal features actual proof that none of the advertisements in Chinese newspapers mention a ten dollar a day wage. Most have base salaries starting from $70 a day while the New York Times states that, that is the salary for an experienced salon worker. Also, the lack of discussing the fact that salon workers need to be licensed is also a bit sketchy. I know from personal experience that every manicurist at the salon I go to has their license displayed by their work table. When you go on to read the second rebuttal (a rebuttal to the first rebuttal) it appears that Mr. Bernstein is the one that did not do his research. The advertisements are placed into context and translated directly, which is something that probably should have been done in the original New York Times article. Explanations of the fact that apprentices made $10 a day while licensed people make $75 a day makes a huge difference. Clearly, the salons are exploiting illegals and the fact that they don’t have licenses. I think that when looking at all three articles, it is obvious that Ms. Nir didn’t explain as thoroughly as she should have in the original article and that Mr. Bernstein did not do as much research as he should have in his rebuttal. Mr. Luo’s criticism seems to be the most thoroughly researched and explained.

Upton Sinclair in “The Jungle” wrote about the plants in which meat was packed. He described exactly how and what goes into the process. He went into extreme detail when talking about the conditions of the plant and exactly how gruesome it was. His account of the meat being spoiled and manipulated in ways so that the people buying it would never know are horrifying and made a huge impact on the industry. Eric Schlosser in “Fast Food Nation” chose to talk about slaughterhouses in which cattle is transformed into the meat eaten at fast food restaurants. He went into detail about what working at the slaughterhouse entails and the conditions workers have to deal with. Although they both approached different sides of the industry, they were both dedicated to exposing the horrific conditions. The result for both writers was a truly disturbing account of both factories that changed the way people view what they eat forever. Reading either of these excerpts puts images into one’s head that they never thought could be associated with the food they consume and that is extremely effective in getting the point across.

I think that what happened with the reporting of the Hillary Clinton emails is that the Times simply got ahead of themselves with the desire to post what was potentially one of the biggest news stories of our time. They didn’t take the time to thoroughly check their sources or attempt to get a source that is more reliable rather than an anonymous one that could never truly be confirmed. Their use of the word “criminal” in the headline also mislead people and prevented them from understanding what was really going on. Their desire for clicks overpowered their desire to keep their information reliable. What the Times should have done was take more time in confirming the information and their sources. An accusation of this magnitude should be extremely thoroughly researched. What has happened because of this article can potentially ruin Clinton’s run for president because even though it may not be completely true, it is now planted in the minds of the American people. A paper as prestigious as the New York Times should prioritize the reliability of their information rather than getting ahead of the competition.

The case of Edward Snowden is complicated when it comes to reporting because the information he brought forth is extremely controversial. Exposing him will change his life forever and it must be very difficult to be the reporter that is chosen to do it. That being said, news organizations are meant to inform us and keep us aware of the fact that any government can become too power hungry. They are there to remind us that there is a line that should not be crossed. The information that Edward Snowden presented definitely should have been published because it showed the American people that the line was definitely crossed. It is understandable that a country can become paranoid after a devastating event like 9/11, but the government should still have been able to keep their actions in accordance with the beliefs of this nation. I think Laura Poitras should be looked at as a role model for journalists and aspiring journalists alike. The article stated how difficult it was for Poitras to watch all the footage she had collected and compared Snowden’s actions to a suicide. What her and Glen Greenwald gave to the public was the opportunity to put an end to the overstepping of their government, or at least try to. The documents they leaked helped to stop an infringement on people’s privacy and that is the pinnacle of what journalists are meant to do.

International – The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/08/everyone-wants-to-leave-death-of-hope-drives-young-syrians-to-europe

The Syrian refugee crisis is currently the biggest story in international news. It affects the whole world and is dividing many people when it comes to what to do with the refugees. I chose this story because I feel that this is something that can change the entire future of Europe. I liked that The Guardian chose to use the personal narrative of someone who is actually experiencing this. Personalizing the story helps me gain a better understanding than that of an outsiders perspective.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/new-zealand-bans-into-the-river-teenage-novel-outcry-christian-group

I chose this article because it always shocks me that things like this still happen in today’s day and age. Having access to all sorts of literature, educating yourself, and forming your own opinions based on that is what shapes you into an adult. Banning books, in my opinion, is one of the most counterproductive things we can do as a society and it can have a very damaging effect on the world. This book was banned for mention of drug use and sexually explicit context. It seems as though the people resposible for this ban are unaware that although you may be able to censor a book that talks about these subjects, you cannot ban them from real life, and the lack of education on the topics only makes matters worse. Once again, The Guardian does a good job of explaining the situation, using relevant quotes, and includes examples from social media from people’s reactions to this news.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/08/israels-important-role-in-the-middle-east

Israel is always a topic that is important to me because it is a place that I have strong ties to. It upsets me to see that it is a country that is constantly slandered in the media. This article was more of a statement, written by two religious leaders of the UK, praising Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel for being the only place in the Middle East that Jews, Christians, and Muslims can all live peacefully if that is what they want. In addition, Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East that women and people of the LGBTQ community can live a normal life. I enjoyed reading the opinions of these two people and felt that they did a good job in factually explaining their support for Israel and supporting all their points with information.

Domestic – New York Times

Kim Davis was released from jail after refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in Kentucky, stating it is against her religion. This article struck me because although I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, they shouldn’t force those opinions onto other people.

President Obama’s Iran deal seems to be getting closer to getting passed but Republicans are still working to make sure that doesn’t happen. They want to be able to escape any blame if the deal does not work.

The United States is considering increasing their limit of 1,500 refugees a year in order to accommodate the growing crisis in Europe. Many international leaders, including Pope Francis, have called on countries like the U.S. to take in more refugees.

Local – ABC 7

http://abc7ny.com/news/gov-cuomo-aide-remains-critical-after-being-shot-in-head-during-pre-parade-festivities/972736/

A top aide to Governor Cuomo is in critical condition after being caught in the cross fire between two gangs. He was heading to a West Indian day celebration. The suspect has not been found yet and there is a 12,500$ reward out for him or her.

http://abc7ny.com/politics/chris-christie-blasts-new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-over-liberal-policing-policy/974048/

New Jersey governor Chris Christie blames Bill De Blasio’s “liberal” policies for the rise in homicide in NYC. The article fails to explain exactly what Christie means when he says “liberal” practices.