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.