The Radiolab’s podcast on the topic of Yellow Rain was nothing short of offensive to it’s guests Eng Yang and Kao Kalia Yang. They had personally witnessed, experienced, and lost many loved ones in the process of the Yellow Rain attacks. This alone should call for special care and attention to their feelings. However, the Radiolab seemed to have other plans, aimed at discovering the truth of what actually happened, which is still debated between the “experts” and “civilians”.

The Radiolab’s has a responsibility to report fair and balanced news, in this case it seems that they did not. Allowing their bias to guide the interview, the listeners and guests involved could see the mistreatment of their side of the story. It was seemingly viewed as the “wrong” side from the beginning. A picture was painted in a way the questioned what they actually saw and its relationship to what they experienced. They then carelessly attributed the original findings of chemicals in the Yellow Rain to be a mistake on the part of the lab. Later stating the an apology was in order for accusing Russia of chemical warfare, while no apology should be extended to those who fell victim to it. Tanya Jo Miller from the Huffington Post further points out the bias held by RadioLab in her article, stating: “Radiolab built the segment on the premise that what seems like truth at the time – people witnessing sickness due to yellow chemicals pouring from the sky – can actually be faulty. The sickness and yellow substance, the show posits, are in fact unrelated.”

No source should ever feel the need to end an interview early because they are being mistreated. News organizations have a responsibility to the people, and if these organizations are personally offending and upsetting the people, they are doing something wrong.

In the New York Times article written byBen Rothenberg, it is evident that his intent was to shed light on the conflict many athletic women face in trying to maintain femininity while being the best they can be. Rothenberg writes in reference to Serena Williams “…mold-breaking muscular frame, which packs the power and athleticism that have dominated women’s tennis for years. Her rivals could try to emulate her physique, but most of them choose not to.” He later states again the complex issue of Serena’s competition also faces, “perceived ideal feminine body type can seem at odds with the best physique for tennis success.”

This article received a tremendous amount of criticism from women who wondered why an article about women’s ideal body type would even be news worthy. Although it is true that the article itself may have come at a bad time for Serena and it could have been written in a different way, I don’t find it to be offensive. Many women fight this so called “ideal body image” while most fall victims to it. For those who aren’t out fighting everyday for the cause or aren’t confident in their own skin, an article like this gives reassurance that we’re not alone. In a way it is comforting that successful athletes who spend their days working on their bodies and perfecting their skills, still struggle with the same issues that the average woman does.

In response toJames Hannaham’s article about Taye Diggs, I struggled to figure out if it was offensive of not. In particular, when Hannaham writes: “If you start to salivate when you hear the phrase ‘‘black men with jobs,’’ then Diggs is your guy” I can’t seem to understand the purpose of the statement in the article. What does he actually mean by this and is he aware of how it comes off to the reader? The statement certainly received it’s fair share of criticism and I’m not particularly opposed to the critiques. In my opinion the article was poorly written and took away from the real story.

Journalists face many dangers when covering a violent crisis such as that in Syria, regardless of whether it be local or foreign. The find themselves right in the middle of all the action in an attempt to most accurately cover the story. By reporting from on the grounds of the crisis, journalists are able to give readers a more detailed first hand account of the situation, in turn helping them to be more informed. However, at times reporters risk their own safety for groundbreaking articles, Erin Banco of the CPJ writes,  “The fighting was becoming too fluid. Several journalists were kidnapped by unidentified groups of men who, we now know, were affiliated with Jabhat Al-Nusra (the Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria), and some better-known reporters, such as Marie Colvin and Anthony Shadid, had died on the job.”

Risks aside, news organizations have a responsibility to inform the public on significant wars and crises in other countries. It is vital that Americans  be on top of foreign news in order to best determine a course of action for national safety and foreign policy. Reporters seem to agree with this idea, willingly and passionately covering heartbreaking stories in Syria to convey a fair and balanced message to Americans. They see their job as one that helps determine the fate of Syrians and that of the rest of the world by bringing everyone together in understanding the turmoil of fellow human beings. Maria Salazar-Ferro writes on account of reporter’s attitudes stating, “Most fear that without their work, the conflict’s atrocities will go undocumented. And some say they do it because, in war, there is no other work.”

As far as the question about how the world ay improve without informed people, it simply cannot. If people go on living their own individual lives in their own towns, states, countries, they will be unaware of what others need to survive and what they can do to help. In my opinions, it is our moral responsibility to help others in any way that can can.

As a frequent nail salon customer, I was extremely interested in the expose published by the New York Times. I felt as though it was a harsh reality check for people like me who walk in and walk out without really considering the working conditions for the sweet and diligent workers. The question of whether or not the Times was fairly criticized is a complex one.

I believe that the information written by reporter Sarah Maslin Nir was true, both because of the credibility of the news organization and because she provided images and specific examples which can be found in independent research by readers. However, I agree that the lack of attribution in the article was questionable along with the sweeping claims made about all nail salons. In this right, critiques from other news organizations and business owners are justified.

The New York Times article was far from balanced, lacking the insight from salon owners and acknowledgment of salons that actually do pay well and provide benefits for employes such as these listed in an article by The New Yorker Review.

QUEENS AREA NAILS
Seeking several large and small work experienced hands.
Base pay $120 plus tips and commissions.
Small work $70, plus tips and commissions.
Seeking part-time small and large work on weekends.
15 minutes two-way transport Flushing to Elmhurst provided.

This is why it is so important for readers to be skeptical of even their most trusted go-to news source. Reading articles on the same topic from multiple news sources will help readers to be more informed on controversial stories such as this one.

I was pleasantly surprised at how much more productive this debate seemed compared to the last time the republican party got together. Questions were asked and answers (for the most part) were given. I got a sense that I understood the plans and views of the front running candidates while also getting a chance to hear from others. However, this wasn’t without the expected bantering back and forth among candidates trying to sell themselves.

News coverage on the debate appeared to be fair, many articles simply gave a recap with some quotes. I came across more of a play by play on the debate in the news rather than a critical analysis. For instance, in a article published by CBS News Rubio was quoted as saying: “We’re running for the same position, and someone’s convinced you that attacking me is going to help you”. I recall the context in which this statement was said and found it to be an accurate portrayal of the motives behind those who attack members of their own party. Doing this doesn’t necessarily help them at this point, as Republicans with the same goal and similar plans, they should stick together in an attempt to first gain more support for the party as a whole.

Following the debate, Trump stated: “I actually think everybody did well, and I thought there was a great camaraderie with the different players. You saw it”. This was refreshing and reinforced my belief that working together will do more good. Overall, I feel that the news coverage was fair, giving an accurate portrayal of the major events from the debate. I also felt that most articles reported on the same moments/quotes. This reinforces the credibility of the reporters who seem to be in agreement about what the significant points were that readers should know.

The way in which Upton writes in comparison to Schlosser sets the stage for how the reader will interpret and digest the information. An impression I strongly got from The Jungle, was that the workers and corporate business of the meatpacking industry were hungry for profit at any cost. If selling spoiled meat made them extra money, they did so without remorse. This writing style, which makes the consumers (and readers) out to be the victims of a heinous scam is probably what began the waves of reform.

In contrast, Fast Food Nation made the impression of being more objectively written. The people working in the slaughterhouse were not so much a part of the story, the focus was on what the reporter saw while they were there. One would think that objectively written facts would have a significant affect on the opinions of readers. However, little to no social reform was done following the publication of Fast Food Nation. This can be attributed to the different writing style (it could be less impacting) or that it was published during a time that people followed the news on a regular basis and were more informed about slaughterhouses.

Another interesting thought I had was the influence that The Jungle may have had on readers reactions to Fast Food Nation. It could be possible that such a historically well known book such as the Jungle, left people feeling as though they had see he worst of the food industry. Little could come as a shock after reading about such horrifying conditions and standards. With this in mind, reading another publication about the awful food industry is simply reiterating the point that was very strongly made years earlier in The Jungle.

The major issue that occurred in the coverage of this story wasn’t that changes were made to the article after it had been published – although that is an issue for reader who were unaware of updates. The focus is on the fact that the Times did not promptly make these changes and failed to notify and give reasoning for such changes.

Wording such as “criminal inquiry” which was later changed to “security referral” along with other edits made between publication on Thursday night to final edits made and acknowledged on Sunday appear striking to readers. As a reader, accurate news is expected but technical errors are understanding in that news is reported as quickly as possible to keep the public well informed. However, if a reader is not notified about the nature of the change and the reasoning for it, they are just as improperly informed as they were when reading the original article.

I think news organizations who come across issues such as these with a story as vital as this one should publish an immediate notice online and a notice in the print copy of the paper the following day. The correct information should be readily available to readers in a new article, not simply corrected in one that was previously published. This will make it easier for readers to be aware of corrections and give news organizations a platform to explain their reasoning.

I agree with the reader who wrote to the Times following the confusion of information, demanding clarification in the following way:

1) please repost the original reporting;
2) provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.
3) what are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?
4) are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

I think this speaks to how most – if not all – readers felt trying to follow the details of this story as articles were published.

In the case of Edward Snowden, news organizations had a moral obligation to publish the classified records he came forward with. It is important that US citizens know the gravity of the situation and the depth of information the NSA is able to collect in such a short period of time. Cases like this are what makes freedom of press and the first amendment so important.

One particular reason why these documents should be published is because of the NSA’s refusal to admit that they were collecting information at all. In several clips shown in the documentary, when on trial the NSA responded “no” to all questions regarding the collection or ability to collect data on US citizens. Since this is so far from the truth, American’s have a right to know the reality of the situation and the news organization have a duty to publish what they know.

The major issue with disclosing such classified documents is that it puts both the whistleblower and the journalist at a very high risk of being put in jail for life. Snowden writes to Poitras “No one, not even my most trusted confidante, is aware of my intentions, and it would not be fair for them to fall under suspicion for my actions. You may be the only one who can prevent that, and that is by immediately nailing me to the cross rather than trying to protect me as a source.” This quote displayed the extreme care taken in moving forward with exposing government records along with the risk taken by everyone involved (both directly and indirectly).

One of the main conflicts met by news and media with a story such as this one is the shock of it all. One of America’s most beloved comedians drugging and raping up to 50 women is tough for most to understand and believe. The image he so strongly built and upheld seemed to be more powerful than the few first allegations that arose ten years ago, resulting in many major news organizations to ignore the story. The Columbian Journalism Review accurately stated that “Cosby was one of an odd collection of celebrities with unsavory stories in their past that curiously were either not mentioned or downplayed.”

However, once a new source that is credible and large enough publishes a piece acknowledging the allegations, journalists jump on the subject. Most of them twisting the delayed response into a controversial news story to get more readers hooked without directly addressing Cosby. In this way, the news publication has done its job in reporting the news, while still keeping a safe distance by not sitting down with the supposed rapist.

By writing from only one point of view, that of the women who had been drugged and raped, the news media are not getting a complete and accurate story. It is their job to sit down with Cosby or someone who represents him and get the other half of the story in order to keep the public well informed.

I believe that with this particular story, the news played both sides, protecting Cosby and his reputation while also throwing him under the bus to protect their reputations.