The Seven News Commandments

There are seven rules to journalism, according to federal judge Marco A. Hernandez:
(1) Education in journalism
(2) Credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; 
(3) Proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; 
(4) Keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; 
(5) Mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; 
(6) Creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; 
(7) Contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story.
There are thousands of bloggers on the Internet, and obviously, not all of them are professional. These seven rules are set to define the line between a journalist and a blogger. It makes sense: to report news, you need credentials. Otherwise, imagine the amount of fake news that will spread! (See previous post) It's important for bloggers to follow at least one and three; but so many good bloggers do not stick to ones such as two and seven. And people still read both bloggers and journalists- and have a hard time differentiating between the two. But with these seven criteria, you can keep a careful eye the next time you're reading an article online to decide for yourself- you know, like this blog!

False News: What's That?

You go online, you'll find something fake. Spam, trolling, whatever you call it- places like Facebook and Tumblr are rich with this, and it's become increasingly harder to decide what's wrong vs. what's right. Some intend to mispread news, for multiple motives- to get attention, to get people to agree with them, and so on. There are others yet who are misinformed, and pass on that wrong info. With that in mind, what's even the definition of fake? There's a half a dozen definitions for fake- "a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham." Something that is a "forgery, counterfeit". While 'most everyone as a kid was taught that it's wrong to lie, journalists and bloggers alike to it on a regular basis. Social media is a place for anyone to express their thoughts, and what people call wrong or right has managed to divide entire populations. There isn't one set definition, and it's far more about a person's view:
"What it means to one person might be different than another," says Senate Majority Leader Chris Holbert. But whatever you view as wrong or right, if something is actually fake- not credible, not cited, without proof or honesty- is no good to eat up. What's the point of learning, if you're learning something that isn't even true? If you're going through the trouble of reading news online, be sure it's true! Just as journalists should make sure to write the truth, readers should make sure to keep in mind whether the content is fake. For example...
Am I lying to you right now?
Quote from: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515760101/when-a-politician-says-fake-news-and-a-newspaper-threatens-to-sue-back

Speak Up!

It's a common saying that snitches get stitches. However, Einstein also said that "the world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything". Standing by and watching injustice without doing anything is more common than doing the bad action itself- but by not saying anything about it, people only add to it. Whistleblowers, therefore, are around- and they often help journalists collect info, true or false. "Whistleblowing is an act of a man or woman who, believing in the public interest, overrides the interest of the organization he/she serves to publicly blow the whistle if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activity."  — Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and activist. If we follow this definition, then isn't whistleblowing something everyone should do? It's true that often people only whistleblow for attention or exaggerate, but if we look at that definition, then it's the morally honest thing to do.

There are so many organizations that actively support whistleblowing: the National Whistleblower Center, the Government Accountability Project, Working with Whistleblowers and so many more. Just take a look at LeakDirectory.org for a longer list of whistleblowing sites!

Journalists often use whistleblowers to get their stories, but if they value their careers, they first check their motivation and information for accuracy in order to verify any suspected falsehood. Without whistleblowing, more harmful activities would be committed and less news stories on them would be around. Honesty is not always the best policy, but when it helps in exposing illegal happenings, then it's highly important to society as a whole. And it doesn't just have to be for something as big as helping journalists expose a corrupt company: if you see something wrong going on, no matter how small you think it is- speak up!

The Spread of False News

If you spend half as much time as I do on the Internet, you would know that popular media has a habit of being flashy. However, the stories found online can often be false- but because of how interesting they are, they catch attention and an audience. Even when posts are accurate (or sincerely intend to be), they can be biased and slanted. And that's human nature: people have opinions, and filter their words through these opinions, whether intending to or not. "We love to hear things that confirm what we think and what we feel and what we already believe." says Silverman, author of Regret the Error. It takes a conscious act to deliver information in an unbiased ways. It happens, it spreads, but when it's published with the intention of being false and people latch onto it- that's when it becomes a problem. Just take a look at last year's election! Writers were all over the place. "They got the most traffic and most traction." He states. Journalists were reporting all kinds of things, and if it was written well enough, people began to hear about it and believe the news they were saying. But why do people choose to spread fake information? You can make money out of it, you can bet people to like you, and at least, you can get people to notice you. You get attention, make a little bit of money, and convince people to be on your side of things. Sounds like a good deal, doesn't it? Silverman interviewed a man in his 20s, who replied with "people know that a lot of the content is false. But that's what works." And it does. Sometimes, content won't even say that it's true. It'll just be interesting enough for people to believe it. Memes, comic strips, that sort of thing. Short, amusing, and effective. If the news is appealing, people will talk about it. And this new plays such a major factor in how people view things and their reactions to ongoing matters. All sorts of data and research has been done, but in the end it's humans who write it and humans who read it, so you can't get definitive answers on the impacts and creation of the media: the truth is always changing. "[...]when we look at some of the data about the impact of misinformation, it's really significant." False information has effected the world in the past, and continues to do so. For the full interview, read this! 

Banning Humans

The world is reeling with news of Donald Trump's 'Muslim Ban'. I, a member of aforementioned world, am also having a hard time comprehending this executive order. It's already affecting immigrants and refugees, and even people that are already in America. Protests are ongoing, and lawyers and judges are working hard to look into this matter. In summary, this ban blocks people from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia from coming into the U.S. The people- of all countries- are calling it racist and cowardly. But however you look at it, it's importantly life-changing. There are people who are simply returning to America, but because of their ethnicity, aren't being let back in. It's interesting that it's called a Muslim Ban, though, because despite the fact that countries such as Iraq and Iran have this (temporary) ban, countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not included (though they have more Muslims). Also, Donald Trump's justification is that this is for the sake of preventing terrorists. Yet, the countries in the ban didn't have to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11, and those who have business dealing with U.S. and are connected to 9/11 are not in the ban. Strange.. almost as if he's being racist and Islamophobic. But he says his "first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.", so it must be true, right? I mean, when do politicians ever speak falsely? 
There's so much everyone can do to help these refugees and immigrants. 'It needs to change', populations are screaming. Don't you think it should be lifted? Using law and protests, people are taking it into their own hands to change this. Judge Ann M. Donnelly of Federal District Court in Brooklyn blocked a part of this ban, and lawyers went to airports to help immigrants who were there in hanging on to their green cards and Visas. Anyone can help, quite frankly, either by posting about it on a blog like this, attending a protest, or spreading information about this matter. Don't take my word for it: research about this, read multiple sources, and come to a conclusion: is leaving refugees and immigrants in a political limbo, people who want to have a better life and have already done much paperwork and struggle to try to get here, really the right thing to do here?