Fillers Don't Belong in News

             A Big Round of Applause For Wave 3🙄

      "Every day I watch and scroll through Wave 3 news and I'm blown away by how very much essential their information is to my life. They provide just the newsworthy information I need to hear about and keep it relevant. Every singly day I scroll through their unproportional category distribution and truly appreciate how important it was to my day......" said absolutely no one ever.  

    It is in no way far fetched to say that wave 3 contains many articles that are nothing but mindless fillers that could be replaced by much more worthy ones. Through an alternate schedule of 5 days of research, I've already noticed an imbalance of stories with more leaning towards the sports category. 4 of the 5 days, sports was the leading category on the live show with the only exception being  10/24 in which crime made a top appearance with all the acts of violence(ex. Kroger shooting) going around.

   No, it's not because it was a slow news day. Especially not four slow news days. There is plenty of important news on the National if not Local level that can be featured instead. However, they still lead towards more sport based stories. They are not a sports based platform, and the move on their part is merely to draw in and please a larger audience.

   Now for the fillers, the mindless, near comical stories found on the site that are there merely for entertainment. I'll admit that I myself could not help but enjoy and remember a number of articles under this category. For instance "Man accidentally sets house on fire after using a blowtorch to kill black widow spiders" and "Behind the Scenes of Aladdin". However, no matter how entertaining, they take away from time better spent on more important stories.

   Of course all this is not to say that Wave 3 is failing as a publication. Overall, through comparison with other groups, they do manage to find ways to put out the major stories that should generally be published;however, that's it. They do the minimal amount of needed important news and the rest is merely standard news that they believe will draw in the most viewers. 

The true extent of defamation laws....

 

                         Watch Your Tweets

Libel is by definition, a published false statement that is damaging to a persons reputation; a written defamation. The requirements of libel were seemingly clearly laid out. In order to accuse of libel, you must prove its false, they perpetrator knew it was false, and it hurt your reputation. What we didn't focus on however, was what was classified as a published false statement.

      If a celebrity made a lie about another celebrity in an Instagram post would that be considered libel? Lets say they found it to meet all the requirements: it was false, the perpetrator knew it was false, and it hurt their reputation. Does a tweet classify as a publication? Is only mass media classified as libel? Or lets say perhaps someone said someone said said something false about someone and then later it was published . Would that classify as libel, and who would you prosecute; the person who said the false statement or the one who published it?

     After some research I found it undeniably clear that the law in terms of Twitter is clear, any form of defamatory statement can be charged of libel. In other words, any forms of libel on social media, blogs, websites etc can be charged of libel. It's not limited to professionally published material. Meaning if anyone from you to Trump were to post defaming false information in any medium can be prosecuted for libel.

   Though I couldn't find it directly stated, through analyzing, I could deduct that libel does not have to be mass media. What if an employer sent out an email to a another employer of one of their old employees falsely defaming them that can be prosecuted for libel. They have ruined their reputation in a way that could lose them a job opportunity.

    My final question, required me to distinguish between slander and libel. No, verbally defaming some one does not classify as libel; however, it is classified as slander which you may also sue under defamation law.

   If all of these different platforms can all leave you are risk for libel you may worry as to how to protect yourself. For that I leave you with the words of Andrew Hamilton, "Truth should be the greatest defense against libel."
 

   



   

"But it's my first amendment right!!!!".........

            Pride, Prejudice, and Outraged Supremacists           

      When I first learned what the freedom of speech was, I had merely thought it to be, as the name implies, the freedom to speak out as you wish. When searching up the freedom of speech, one of the very first definitions I actually found was "the right to express any opinion without censorship or restraint". However, growing exposure to media and new knowledge of the element of journalism "inclusive", my views shifted, and not for the better. 

     

        Constantly I would hear complaints and critiques of this journalist and this media outlet for being too biased and not proposing all the views. The lines of right and wrong in my head blurred and it led me to question the very concept of being inclusive. In truth, my very interest in journalism was sparked by the opportunity to fight for what I though was right and give power back to the people. So, you see why the threat of needing to give the view of a side so ridiculous as "white supremacy" representation in anything I wrote was very disgruntling.

        

          That's were the class discussion's revelation jumps in. By the right of the journalists themselves, they don't have to feature sides as inhumane as many that exist today. Though everyone may have the right to their opinion, we have the right of knowing when to draw the line of being inclusive and needn't take the time to give them an actual platform in the media. WE DON'T HAVE TO COVER THEM!!

      

           I learned this concept as a mere Freshman of high school in the very first journalism class I've ever taken. To genuinely believe that top media platforms didn't know what I had learned as a Freshman was preposterous to me. But if they know all this, why do a number of professional media platforms still fall subject to claims of "bias" and actually present such ridiculous ideals.

        This led me to the under-lying cause we hadn’t discussed in class. Money, money, and more money. No, I'm not claiming this to be the one and only reason cause nor am I suggesting it's the most prominent. However, it's the one that I saw click into place right away. It would be a lie to say that a lot of major news publications were not populist whatsoever. The majority of top news publications are looking to get as many viewers as possible in their telling of the news. Though maybe not on corrupt level, money is a factor.

      If money is a factor, then defamation due to supposed "bias" (especially if most of your viewers have similar views to the one you believe unworthy of a platform) is a big no no. While media outlets are mainly there to provide news, they are also influenced by the audience in many ways. 

     

      Of course, there are other reasons such as a genuine want to understand these views. That is one of the reasons why articles such as the much criticized New York Times “A voice of hate in Americas Heartland”(Read here) were published. Though before I may have seen the logic in this defense, I realized that what we discussed on platforms needs to be put into more consideration. To do a full interview on a white nationalist whether positive or negative, is to normalize the problem and give it a legitimate platform.

        We know about the problem and the problem shouldn't be there. So, let’s spend less time covering it as if it was viable hmmmm.

      

  

        

     

Flip the script

    

 Fifty Shades of Cinema

     It is needless to say that movies are a cherished part of society. In class there was no doubt that cinema had countless advantages that have allowed it to survive and thrive as it has. It's a social experience, a cultural phenomenon, and provides an immersive environment. Overall, it's been painted in tints of greatness and benefits. However, that led me to delve into what the darker shades of the popularity of cinema are. It can't be all good, can it?

   For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To find the drawbacks of cinema, all I had to do was flip the script. The very factors that I viewed in a more positive light during class, I could also shed in a negative light.

   When given the label of a new technology so immersive and ingrained in society as cinema, I found some obvious drawbacks. Society could be impacted by a film on levels unbeknownst to other mediums of communication. Nazism actually gained popularity through elaborate propaganda using technology such as cinema. 

   No, I'm not suggesting that we should dispose of cinema for the "greater good" or whatnot. Rather, through finding out the negative effects of cinema, I learned to truly comprehended the full extent of it's influence. It isn't all good and it isn't all bad, but it has the ability to shape society. For everyone to go to the cinema and be so engulfed by a movie or series of movies with the same message (particularly because it's a cultural, social experience) is destined to leave its mark.