As discussed in Rodger Streitmatter’s Mightier than the Sword, journalism has been an essential influence on the evolution of society, serving as a catalyst for movement and change throughout history.

One of the most prominent roles that journalism plays in history is taking facts and interpreting them in a way that makes people care about important issues. This process creates movement and enacts change within the public.

This was the case with Huffington Post‘s stance on as gay rights, calling the extension of hate-crime laws to cover sexual orientation “a no brainer,” according to Streitmatter.

Journalism has also played a role in taking down malicious individuals in society. By exposing the wrongdoings of these people in the form of news reporting or even political cartoons, journalism works to spark a conversation about what these individuals are doing wrong in order to bring them to justice.

Using communication rather than physical force and destruction, journalism has inspired the passion of the people and turned this passion into action. Such was the case for revolutionaries in the 1770’s or protesters for gay rights in the 2000’s.

More than anything, journalists have used this form of communication to help people create change within society. Journalism plays an active role in the making of history, serving as a way to encourage people to get involved with issues that matter.

Without this powerful tool of communication that helped shift America’s feelings towards subjects like slavery, social advancements throughout history would have been slower and much less effective.

Journalism has held a heavy influence of the many historical occurrences and will continue to do so in the future. Even with the skepticism from the public that the field faces today, truly great journalism will bring change and influence as long as it exists.

The field of journalism has evolved tremendously throughout time. Today, there are thousands of news outlets that use every platform, from social media to traditional print media, to tell stories.

This is can be both a good thing and a bad thing for the people who read these stories.

Journalism is meant to inform the people while maintaining its five core principles. However, there is some concern regarding if all journalism is practiced ethically. The human mind is a unavoidable element of journalism and is inevitably attached to human biases. Because of this, there are some flaws in the way stories are told.

One of the largest concerns in the field of journalism is fairness. With many media skewing their content towards either end of the political spectrum, news is told in many different voices. It is always necessary to view many different sources on the same topic before a person forms their own opinion on the situation.

Another major concern would be humanity. Many journalists are concerned about awards and recognition for their work, exploiting stories about the human condition for personal gain.

Though we do sometimes risk the ethics of journalism not being upheld, the benefit that the world gains from this field outweighs the costs.

While these concerns are apparent and important, many in the field journalism also conducts themselves with merit and respect. Those that uphold the ethics of journalism make the field a reliable source of valuable information for the public.

Journalism plays an essential role in society. Without it, there’s no democracy and no freedom. However, if these ethics are not followed, journalism can play a counterproductive role in the advancement of society.

It’s up to the people to use journalism as a tool to maintain informed and become involved in solving issues.

A Michigan doctor has been accused of the genital mutilation of two 7-year-old girls at an unnamed medical clinic, though a criminal complaint filed in federal court suggests there may be more victims.

According to a New York Times article, the accused, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, was arrested earlier this month on charges of preforming genital mutilation, transporting minors with intent to engage in sexual criminal activity and lying to federal agents. She denied allegations of genital cutting on children when she appeared in court.

Though genital cutting has been illegal in the U.S. since 1996, this law was amended in 2013 to outlaw “vacation cutting,” where girls are transported to other countries for the procedure. Even with these laws, half million women in the U.S were still at risk of, or affected by, genital cutting in 2012. The author cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as her source, which enhances her credibility.

Genital cutting involves removing genitalia before puberty, and puts women at risk for things like childbirth complications.

The two girls, both from Minnesota, went with their parents to the unnamed clinic under false pretenses, where Dr. Nagarwala allegedly performed the procedures. One of the girls experienced a procedure so painful that she could hardly walk after it was completed. According to the criminal complaint filed in federal court, there may have been “multiple” other girls victimized between 2005 and 2007.

Dr. Nagarwala has been placed on administrative leave at Detroit’s Henry Ford Hospital, where she practices emergency medicine. The hospital made a statement saying they would never support this practice.

Though horrific, this case of abuse is significant in the fight against female genital mutilation. It can spread awareness about the issue and encourage people like teachers and health care providers to learn to report abuse.

Cara Finnegan speaks to students about the visual representation of refugee issues in the media.

Watching Shattered Glass, I found the most interesting part of the movie to be experiencing the deterioration of Steven Glass. In the beginning, the movie portrays him as a friendly and honest individual. As the movie progresses, it was interesting to feel my own perception of the character change as more of his character traits were revealed.

I kept comparing the movie to the field of journalism as it is today. Throughout the movie, I was constantly thinking that this situation would never have the possibility of happening today because of the Internet. The movie, and the actual event, were both happening in a time before there was a plethora of information on the Internet that allowed people to check even simple facts, like if a certain organization exists. Also, because of the availability of information on the Internet, even readers are able to check the facts from a story. Personally, if I find an interesting article from a newspaper or magazine, I like to look more into it, simply from curiosity. If I found errors as I was researching, such as those that Glass made in the movie, I would assume that this article was fake news. In addition, someone like Glass would be easily found out today because of the skepticism of readers.

The emotional element of the movie was also an important component in its appeal. For example, watching Glass stay silent as the names of his fabricated articles were listed was a powerful part of the film.

This movie effectively portrayed an important event in the field of journalistic ethics and inadvertently allowed me to see the shift in journalism through effectively using character development and emotional appeal.

This documentary was one I had heard about before but had never seen until this point. It was a very interesting look into what is considered to be one of the largest personal security cases in American history. This movie also sparks debate, since I would say that it tells the story mostly from the side of the people who approve of Snowden’s actions. One impressive element in the documentary was the suspense that the director built around the situation.  As the movie went on, I began to feel more and more nervous for Snowden and was constantly wondering if he would be arrested, even though I knew in that he did not in real life. I think that sense of paranoia that developed enhanced the experience of listening to the story. Looking at the larger picture, this documentary allows its audience to see how different countries are affected by the actions of the U.S., which I found to be a really interesting angle. Even though Snowden’s efforts were focused on the U.S., the movie shows how different elements of the story fit together to create a global impact. For me, this story also brings into question what other citizens are doing about the issue now. This is the goal of most documentaries: to get people thinking. With this particular documentary, I found myself more engaged in the topic and wanting to research on Snowden’s whereabouts and what was happening with this issue currently. Because of this, I think that the documentary did a good job highlighting the importance of these events and making people interested in an important issue that is still relevant right now.

Many of my favorite movies are based on true events because I’m interested in getting little glances of other people’s stories. I believe it’s important to share stories that are harder or more uncomfortable to tell so that we, as a society, are more aware and able to act on unjust circumstances. Because of this, Spotlight was a movie that sparked my interest from the beginning. I thought the balance between the ethics of journalism and the agenda of Cardinal Law was an interesting dynamic throughout the story. It was extremely surprising to me that a representative of any religion would hide something that was hurting so many people just to save the reputation of their church. It was interesting to see the case getting larger and larger as the team uncovered more details. It was also interesting to see the growing personal investment that Sacha and Mike gained as he found out more about the story and the victims. To me, this shows how much some journalists really want to make a difference with their reporting. It also shows me how much work goes into successfully meeting with important sources for your story or gaining access to important documents. With some of the bad reputation that the press receives today, this movie showed me the positive effect that journalism can have on society and how much of a difference it can make to share stories that would have otherwise been buried with the rest of history. It was sad that when people like Phil had sent the box of evidence in five years ago, the newspaper didn’t car until they decided it was time to care. Overall, I would say that this movie was very effective in communicating a story and the message behind that story.

Knowing previously about the Watergate Scandal, I was rooting for Woodward and Bernstein to keep digging into the story and figure out what was happening. Even when their editors didn’t believe in the importance of the story and their sources kept turning them down, I found myself getting more invested into their success. Throughout the movie, I was wondering who kept threatening all of these sources and telling them not to talk. For example, it was really eerie when Woodward and Bernstein went to the woman’s apartment and she was partially willing to give them information, but when they went back for further information, she was crying and would not talk to them. It makes me wonder how much corruption there is in the government today, and how even though people want to tell the truth, their livelihood might be in danger if they did say anything. I think that this movie is an important lens into history. It shows how journalism is a process that requires many pieces of a puzzle. These journalists need to uncover pieces of the puzzle in order to complete it. Again, this movie shows how important journalism is in uncovering and telling important stories. I thought that the movie did a great job in portraying an event through the lens of the reporters who essentially made the event known. The film did a good job in giving the story an interesting and cinematic flair so that people were interested in an important historic event. It’s interesting to see a little bit of a parallel between this movie and the political climate today. For example, the President’s campaign manager insinuated that the Washington Post was reporting incorrect information would today be similar to Donald Trump calling other news outlets fake news.

This Thursday, the Vermont House passed a measure that protects journalists from revealing confidential sources, even when threatened with a subpoena.

According to an article in U.S. News, the nearly unanimous vote of 140-2 allowed the final approval for the passing of the bill.

The bill serves as protection for journalists, who will no longer need give up confidential sources to state officials, even through a subpoena.These sources could include unpublished tapes, notes and photos.

Last month, the bill passed unanimously in the senate. It will soon be handed onto Republican Gov. Phil Scott. Scott will review the bill with his lawyers, but is said to support its legislation.

Prior to the decision, Vermont’s media professionals acted as temporary lobbyists in order to help the law through.

Many who voted for the bill see it is as a victory for free press in Vermont and for the sources that journalists rely upon. It allows sources, such as whistleblowers and victims, to safely disclose information to the press.

As of recently, multiple factors have brought support to a shield law, such as attempts to subpoena Vermont journalists and President Donald Trump’s statement that the U.S. should weaken libel laws so that journalists can be sued for printing disparaging information.

While a majority of representatives support the bill, there are also those who are skeptical.

Bob Frenier, Republican Rep. and one of the two lawmakers who voted against the bill, stated that it narrows down the definition of free press, which is already very broad.

Transgender rights have been a topic of hot debate in the political and legal sphere, but as the law fails to provide support, there are new therapies that may prove a brighter future for transgender youth.

With the supreme court’s indecision and President Trump’s reversal on the federal government’s stance on transgender rights, the government cannot seem to decide their position on the issue.

Despite the legal and political confusion, doctors have made advancements on how transgender patients are treated and the therapy techniques that they can receive. This could mean an easier transition for transgender youth.

An article in the New York Times tells the story of Hannah, a 14-year-old girl, who has been using a puberty-blocking implant and getting ready to start estrogen in the process of developing a female body.

Hannah has utilized true gender self child therapy, in which children are encouraged to explore their gender identity. Though children of all genders can use this therapy, it allows a non-medical, social transition for transgender children especially.

Until recently, the transgender identity has largely been treated as a disorder. A 2002 manual for the treatment of “gender identity disorder in young boys” recommends behavioral interventions to force a child into traditional gender roles in order to guide the child out of being transgender.

Though there is still relatively little data on the benefits of social transition, a study found that transgender youth that were allowed to socially transition had depression and self-worth levels that did not differ from their peers.

If transgender youth are shown support instead discouragement and disapproval, there is greater opportunity for them to thrive, beginning in their youth. With new therapies and a changing mindset on how these patients are treated, there is hope for the legal stance on transgender rights to follow.