“THE NEWS MEDIA HAVE SHAPED AMERICAN HISTORY. ABSOLUTELY. Boldly. Profoundly,” says Rodger Streitmatter, in an excerpt of his book, Mightier Than The Sword. In this particular chapter, Streitmatter acknowledges the idea that journalism has served as a catalyst for every major historical and social movement since colonial times. He delves into 10 different methods he believes media outlets have used to shape American history throughout the centuries; in essence, the how. One method that resonated with me most was the conclusion that news organizations have influenced events because they’ve been willing to set an agenda, rather than merely record the facts. Before taking this course, I would have refuted that idea, but my newfangled knowledge of journalism has led me to believe that the media has had more of an impact on America’s history than society will ever comprehend.

Upon watching the beginning of Shattered Glass, I couldn’t help but wonder why this particular title was chosen for a movie about a successful journalist. Stephen Glass was a seemingly cunning and creative writer, and became a booming success because of his stories for “The New Republic”. I didn’t realize why the title was so fitting until Stephen Glass broke down and admitted to having fabricated over half of his stories. His reputation and therefore character was “shattered” as a result of the investigations.

I, personally, found it easy to keep up with the plot because Journalism 200 has taught me the term, ‘libel’ which is prominent in the movie during parts where the staff has to fact-check Glass’s stories for it.

Truthfully, I did not enjoy All the President’s Men nearly as much as I had hoped. While it was based off an extremely interesting event in American history, I thought the acting to be quite cheesy. Now, with that being said, I think there’s something to be commended of the investigative journalism this film brings to life. While the acting of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman was subpar in my book, I believe they did a fantastic job of portraying the situation the real-life reporters found themselves in. The film showed how aggressive and relentless Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had to be in their efforts to uncover Nixon’s crimes. It was also neat to see how different the two journalists were, although successfully working together.

As watching certain movies was part of an extra credit assignment, I was not expecting to enjoy the first film I watched, Spotlight. However, Spotlight was the type of film that you think about long after the final credits run down your screen. It compiled three of my favorite genres into one cohesive film – history, drama, and crime. Because of this, it was both enthralling and enlightening. The affair the Spotlight journalists were investigating was rather touchy, and it was alarming to see how many Catholic priests in Boston alone were found guilty of child molestation. I think this story has resonated with me so much because of its shock value, as well as the spectacular acting throughout. The team embodied what I believe investigative journalism should be – bravery, truth, and justice.

Society lives off of the news. It is in nearly every aspect of our lives, whether we like to believe it or not. You see, the news is an inescapable phenomenon that has been around for centuries. Whether simply told by mouth, published in newspapers, or broadcasted on television, it will continue to be around for a very long time. What do I think about the news? I don’t particularly like it… but I don’t dislike it either. It is entertaining, and enlightening. It keeps me busy on a rainy day, and helps me to keep up with the latest stories. However, I have equally mixed feelings about journalism itself, because I truly believe (and this is my opinion), that no journalist will ever be purely objective. From my own experience in JOUR 200, I’ve found that humans naturally lean toward reporting what they’re passionate about, and have a strong opinion about. It would be impossible for a person to not have an opinion about something, which is why I’ve found hidden biases in almost every type of journalism I’ve been subjected to in my life. Because of this, it’s extremely hard to know which journalists and news outlets can be trusted. In an article written by Elizabeth Backstrom and published by Spokane Favs, Backstrom says, “A journalist decides what sources to call, what quotes to include in a piece, what order to put them in, and maybe most important, who not to contact.” She also added, “A story is shaped subtly by a journalist, no matter how objective they try to be.” I’m doing exactly what Backstrom asserted at this very moment, and I think we can agree that journalists will never be as objective as we are made to believe.

Throughout the recent presidential election, there were numerous attacks on Donald Trump’s integrity and character from the opposing side. However, his largest assumed legal offense was that of tax evasion, and eye brows were further raised when he refused to make his financial records public. Just last month, two veteran reporters were able to get their hands on president Trump’s 2005 tax return, and they swiftly leaked them to the world. In an investigative piece written by Richard Wolffe and published by The Guardian, Wolffe discusses the impact of the release of the POTUS’s tax returns. He was able to write this article due to the work of David Cay Johnston and Rachel Maddow, the reporters responsible for leaking the returns. As stated by Wolffe, “The emergence of the returns itself blows a couple holes in the beautiful wall the White House has built to protect the president’s dubious finances.” The subsequent statements lashing out at Johnston and Maddow from the White House have made people further beg the question, “What are they trying to hide?” Although the leak is a meager stride toward discovering the truth about Donald Trump’s finances, it’s an enormous stride for investigative journalism.

President Donald Trump is notorious for taking to social media sites to express negative feelings, and this theme continued on Thursday, March 30, as he took to Twitter to debate libel laws. Trump’s unhappiness with current libel law is a result of his blatant distaste toward The New York Times. In an article written by Adam Liptak and published by The New York Times, Liptak examines the facets of libel laws, and why President Trump would never be able to change them. For one, it’s difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit, because, as the Supreme Court has stated, there must be proof that the journalist consciously said something false about them. As well as this, the Supreme Court has put constitutional limits on how each state can define libel, meaning public figures must be able to prove actual malice. Judge Neil M. Gorsuch stated at one of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, “…the First Amendment has special meaning and protection when we’re talking about the media, the press in covering public officials, public actions and indicted that a higher standard of proof was required in any defamation or libel claim.” Ultimately, in suing for libel, President Trump would face much bigger challenges than any other individual in the United States.

With Donald Trump’s presidency comes challenge for a great deal of people – specifically women, in this case. Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of his campaign was his vow to cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood, along with nearly outlawing abortions in America. This did not sit well with many Americans –  the concept of a woman’s right to choose has been widely recognized and respected – until now. In an article written by Robin Utz and published by The Washington Post, Mrs. Utz spoke about her struggle with getting an abortion in Trump’s America. She had discovered after her 21 week ultrasound that her daughter had developed bilateral multi-cystic dysplastic kidney disease. This particular disease has 100% fatality rate in newborns, and threatens the mother’s life if carried to full-term. Because of this, Utz and her husband made the painful decision to abort their daughter, whom they had already named, Grace Pearl. Knowing their daughter would endure a painful life and a painful death, they made this decision out of love. Robin Utz expressed that the abortion process in Missouri was especially excruciating. She had to sign a statement confirming she had heard her baby’s heartbeat, and another declaring she knew she was “ending the life of a separate, unique, living human being”. In addition to this, her private insurance did not cover the abortion, so it was extremely expensive to obtain. With the federal defunding of abortions, women with little money will be forced to carry their baby’s until birth, with minimal exceptions to the situation. It’s worrisome to me, and millions of women across the United States, that we are living in a country wherein the government determines what is deemed right and wrong for a woman’s body. Hopefully there will be compromise and reform in the future.

An undeniable fact is that social media is rapidly expanding into our lives. While it may have its drawbacks, it proved to be quite helpful in one man’s journey to find Donald Trump’s missing $10,000 portrait. In an article written by David A. Fahrenthold and published by The Washington Post, Univision news anchor, Enrique Acevedo was able to solve the mystery behind the notorious painting through social media. Tweets based off of a picture found on Tripadvisor.com circulated earlier that night, speculating that Trump National Doral Miami, a golf resort owned by then GOP nominee, was home to a self-portrait purchased with his own charity’s funds. Curiosity led Acevedo to look into the matter himself. He reserved a room at the resort and wandered the halls, asking the staff whether they had seen the portrait. Upon one staff member’s directions to look for it downstairs, Acevedo walked into Champions Bar and Grill, to find the $10,000 portrait resting on a wall, absent of a plaque. The next day he snapped a picture and took to Twitter to confirm that the tweets were true. Perhaps the portrait was “missing” because the Trump Foundation illegally purchased it to be used at a for-profit resort?

It’s no secret that Twitter is President Trump’s beloved approach to communicating with the world, and in recent news, he did just that in an effort to attack the man who thwarted his travel ban. @realDonaldTrump “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” (04 Feb 2017, 5:12 AM). In an article written by Dean Obeidallah and published by CNN, the author analyzes the bountiful ways in which this particular tweet has been titled “bone-chilling” by many. It isn’t the idea that the President of the United States took to Twitter to confront opposition, but rather the idea that the very principle of his argument delegitimizes our country’s judicial system. It’s worrisome to Americans that their president is now discrediting the courts in an effort to have absolute power over the goings-on in the country… similar to a dictatorship, if you will. Aside from the courts, Trump has attacked the media as well as intelligence agencies whenever their views conflict with his. Clearly the President believes spoiling their credibility will make him appear to be more credible to the people. Will our president continue to fight the separation of powers that our founding fathers envisioned for the American government?

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/opinions/donald-trumps-most-bone-chilling-tweet-obeidallah-opinion/