"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.