Radiolab’s so called coverage of Yellow Rain made me feel sympathetic towards Eng and Kao Yang. They were made to believe that they would have a platform where they could talk about the firsthand horrors experienced by Eng but was instead ridiculed and eventually even accused of heresy. I think Radiolab showed us what happens when journalists do not try to provide fair and balanced viewpoints.

We previously discussed ethics in journalism as well as journalistic ideals. It is clear that Radiolab were not sensitive to the Yangs and instead focused on the expert testimonies, providing a one sided view of the issue. I understand that journalists must ask difficult questions to get deep into the issues but there is a difference between asking tough questions and just plain out insensitive questions. No one wants to hear a boring interview without any tough questions. At the same time, I feel that Radiolab should have asked more questions with the intent to show more of the Yang’s experiences and the unique perspective he has to offer the listeners.

Journalists, both foreign and local face a variety of dangers everyday. When they report on events, there are always people who disagree with their views and are in danger of retaliation from extremists.

Syria is known to be an especially harsh environment for foreign journalists. Countries that do not have established freedom of the press seek to oppress opposing viewpoints and silence critics. This is why it is very important that journalists report on events going on in these countries. Without the journalists to act as a check on the governments, there may be horrible atrocities that never come to light. The citizens of the countries will not have a balanced viewpoint of what is going on and will only hear one side of the story, the government’s. It was mentioned in one of the articles that Syrians only had access to the government’s point of view before local and foreign journalists became involved.

Without journalists to report on these stories, it may become impossible for the situation to improve. There will be no foreign government pressure or sanctions to improve conditions and the local citizens may not even be aware of the extent of the situations that they are in.

Both Fast Food Nation and The Jungle provided valuable insight into the widespread abuses going on within the meatpacking industry but they differed in their approach. Fast Food Nation was more focused on the individual workers effected by the conditions at the factory, while The Jungle was more focused on the poor quality and hygienic conditions of the meat itself. In addition, the Jungle is a fictional piece of work which detracts from its authenticity. Fast Food Nation is a first hand account of a factory visit so the details are far more convincing. I think that the Jungle was effective because it provided the readers with grotesque explicit images of the food that they consume often. It repulses the reader into caring about the widespread abuse. Fast Food nation draws its effectiveness by being a first hand account of what happens in a real meatpacking plant. In addition, it makes you sympathize for the characters in the story by detailing their plights in a highly descriptive manner. The fact that it’s a real story is also a plus. I liked both approaches but felt that Fast Food Nation was more effective.

It may seem extremely obvious, but I think that the situation could have easily been avoided if the Times had avoided the usage of anonymous sources. As stated in Sulivan’s opinion piece regarding this issue, anonymous sources inherently lack accountability regarding their accuracy. If the Times wants to maintain their reputation as a accurate source of news they must take care to examine their sources and make sure that the facts are accurate. Although it may be tempting to be the first organization to report a story, the competitiveness must be balanced with care for accuracy. Some customers have lost their trust in the Times as a result of this issue and are even demanding refunds.

I think that the Times is generally doing a great job but to make sure that this kind of issue doesn’t happen again, they should implement a system of checks where the editor might question the reporter about the facts presented in the story. In addition, they should make sure that the facts can be verified independently via a second source.

I believe that the news organization did the right thing by releasing the documents to the public. One of the things that we went over during class was the press’ responsibility to inform the public about potential government abuse. By releasing the documents that Snowden uncovered, the press was fulfilling its duty to the public. Poitras, Snowden’s videographer, went  through many personal hardships so that the story would be released. She had to take multiple security measures and always be on the lookout for someone or something keeping an eye an her, In addition, Snowden understood the consequences of his actions. The  fact that he went through a decision that he knew was not good for him indicates the level of conviction he held about he documents. He knew he may be jailed but blew the whistle because he truly believed in change.

I believe that as an American citizen, I should at least have the right whats going on. Even though classified documents can contain sensitive info, I believe that the people have a right to know and that the press should be obligated to provide it for them.

Through The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby built up a huge following and influence. He was one of the most popular actors and had an enormous amount of public goodwill. When the allegations of rape first surfaced, it was brushed off and received very little coverage in mainstream media. It was only when the accusations began to multiply in number that it began to receive widespread coverage in the news.

When publishing articles about incidents such as Bill Cosby’, news organizations must strive to stay as objective about the situation as possible. In many sexual assault and rape cases, it comes down to the reliability of the testimonies provided by the victims versus those of the accused.  In Cosby’s case, many of the accusations are from many years ago. The alleged victims’ claims must be viewed in a objective way and balanced with the available facts. News organizations face many challenges in personal cases like Cosby’s. They cannot allow Cosby’s fame to influence and shape the case.  Media coverage has a great amount of influence on how the public views cases and it should not be something that is taken lightly. It is easy to be one sided and provide a single biased perspective, but it is the duty of  news organizations to provide a balanced, unbiased account of the facts.