Should I be Silenced

    The first amendment of the Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."This amendment has been the backbone of American society, and you can see that with the people today. If you ask anyone to name the first 10 amendments, people will consistently get the first and second's right. This is because the first amendment has a significant impact on our lives, and someone who learned about this impact was Edward Murrow and the people affected by the Red Scare. Edward Murrow was a broadcast journalist for CBS; he was most known for his coverage of World War ll, and his show See It Now. This show gained prominence during the red scare years when Murrow and his team consistently call out McCarthy for his blatant violation of civil liberties. This moment in time was so monumental that they made a movie about it in 2005 called Good Night and Good Luck. I will walk you through this movie and show ho
w McCarthy and the government tried to shut up people like Murrow. Around 5 minutes into the film Murrow and his team are sitting in a room trying to figure out a story for the week. During the meeting, they discussed Milo Radulovich, now Milo was a lieutenant in the Air Force, and it came out that Milo's father and sister were suspected communists. During this time, if anyone you were affiliated with was a suspected communist, you were also thought to be one. Since the Air Force did not want to employ a communist, they cut his commission and discharged him from the military Milo had no fair trial. The Air Force constantly talked about a manilla folder that held all of the evidence against Milo.

    Still, no one was permitted to see the contents, not even the board members reducing over his trial. Once Murrow heard this story, he decided to run with it. At this point in time, Murrow was already firmly against the Red Scare and McCarathy this strong opposition led to many people thinking he was a communist himself. While Murrow and his team were working on the Milo story, the Air Force strong-armed and even threatened the studio to not run the story. This moment is huge because it is the film's first sign of government intervention. Also, it makes you think how many reporters have our military threatened or even physically harmed into not running a story. Our military is supposed to be protecting us from the supposed bad guys, not threatening us for exposing their faults. Moving on, Murrow decided to air the story, which was met with a positive reception from the public. Throughout the movie, McCarthy makes many moves to discredit Murrow's reputation. We see this early on when Joseph Wershba was working in DC. One of McCarthy's "employees" hands him an envelope containing evidence that Murrow used to interact with the Soviets. He used to be on their payroll. The absurd thing about all of this was people were being persecuted for an ideology; anyone that challenged McCarthy or slightly questioned him was seen as unpatriotic and communist. Murrow would eventually invite McCarthy onto the show to explain his side of the story. Still, instead of explaining his rationale, he attacks Murrow and accuses him of being a communist again. Throughout the whole film, McCarthy is seen as the big bad villain. In my opinion, however, McCarthy is another victim of the US government too. While McCarthy did jail countless people, he could not have done it on his own McCarthy did not have the power to hand out sentences; he did not appoint himself to committee positions; it is not talked about enough how much the US government really trusted this man. They gave him so much power, and as soon as they realized their mistake, they blamed him and ruined his reputation. John McCarthy, in all essence of the words, was an ignorant and egotistical man, and without the help of the US government, that is all he would ever amount to but as soon as you give a man like him some power, they will run with it. Just keep in mind people will more often try to treat the illness instead of figuring out what is causing the illness.

Considering the Bigger Picture

    Throughout the history of the United States, there have been various instances where the government has attempted to restrict free speech, a fundamental right of every citizen. Some of the most notable examples include Lincoln's arrest of journalists who spoke out against him or the Union during the Civil War and the passing of the Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to criticize the government. These events demonstrate that the government has always sought to control the narrative and limit dissenting voices, especially during times of war.

    Also, as seen in the movie, the concept of being "American" is constantly evolving, and its meaning changes based on the political and social climate of the time. During the Red Scare, individuals who supported communism or did not embrace democracy were considered un-American. In the 1800s, those who opposed slavery were not regarded as true Americans by many Southerners. Even in recent years, individuals who did not support the invasion of Iraq were deemed unpatriotic and disloyal. Such instances reveal the ever-changing nature of the term "American" and how it can exclude and marginalize those who do not conform to the majority's views.

    In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the government's attempts to control the media and limit the public's access to information. During Trump's presidency, he frequently attacked the press, going over 300 days without holding a formal press conference. By banning news outlets like CNN and the Guardian from his briefings, Trump created a chilling effect that prevented alternative viewpoints from being heard. The Obama administration also censored the media including many whistleblowers, with the most prominent one being Edward Snowden, were prosecuted. These attempts to control the narrative are dangerous as they undermine democracy and freedom of speech.

    I've also noticed a modern media trend for this era, and it deserves a name: the Partisan era. Nowadays, every article you read has a clear agenda to push. With the advent of the internet, it's become even more accessible for anyone with extreme views to create a website and publish whatever they consider "newsworthy." It's become increasingly more work to find unbiased reporting these days. Gone are the days when news organizations were known for their credibility and commitment to unbiased truth. Today, all that matters to these companies are generating clicks, and there's nothing like controversy to make you famous

I    n conclusion, it's important to note that not everything the government does is evil. To be fair, the government does much good for the general public. However, it's crucial to open your eyes and not let the good blind you to the bad. Sadly, many atrocities on our civil liberties are being done in broad daylight, and we're not vigilant enough to see it. As the great Edward Murrow said, "Good night and good luck."

Anomymous Sources Reax

If someone were to tell you top state secrets and you asked who told you this and their response was "I cannot say," how likely would you be to believe them? This simple interaction is the main boiling point of anonymous sources. When I listened to the presentation about anonymous sources, I was interested in how controversial this topic is. I always felt that anonymous sources were necessary to protect the leaker, but as the presentation went on, I began to understand the other side more and more.

    First, I firmly believe that people who leak sensitive state documents are criminals, regardless of whether it helps protect the public. However, whether they should be seen as criminals is a question for another day. If someone leaks information and asks to remain anonymous, their names should be published. What they did was illegal, and there are consequences for their actions. However, there is another side to anonymous sources. It could be an employee who overheard a conversation with the CEO. People in these types of situations deserve to be kept anonymous. They have done nothing illegal to obtain the information they know, and if their names were to be leaked, they would likely find it very difficult to find work again.

    With all this in mind, reporters should have anonymous source privileges. As of right now, there are no federally recognized privileges that allow a reporter to keep an anonymous source. While the First Amendment protects reporters extensively in this area, having some law for reassurance would still be good. The main reason I say this is because in the presentation, the group mentioned the story of Judith Miller, and what happened to her should be illegal. She was held in jail for 85 days for not revealing who her anonymous source was, and the only reason she was freed was that her anonymous source said it was okay for her to reveal their meetings.

    With the advent of technology and modern media, anonymous sources will probably become more and more prevalent in our society; this rise in anonymity can be a danger to the credibility of journalists everywhere, or it can help produce breaking news at record numbers, but as of right now we are at a dangerous middle ground and only time can tell.

Bernard Shaw

    Let me tell you about a remarkable journalist who covered the Persian Gulf War from a hotel in Iraq, moderated the first African American presidential debate, and was inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame. Do you know who I'm referring to? If not, just look at the title - his name is Bernard Shaw.

  Before pursuing his illustrious broadcasting career, Bernard Shaw was born in Chicago on May 22, 1940. His parents were Edgar Shaw, a railroad employee, and Camila Shaw, a housekeeper. Shaw attended Dunbar Vocational High School, where he became interested in journalism. While Shaw was in high school, he began to read many of the local papers, and he was an avid watcher of Edward Murrow's news broadcast, See It Now. He cited Murrow as a massive influence in his life; all of these influences led to Shaw working on his high school paper, and by his senior year, he was the chief editor. In 1958, after finishing high school, Shaw decided to pursue a career in the military and joined the United States Marine Corps the following year. While stationed in Hawaii in 1961, he came across a newspaper article mentioning Walter Cronkite's presence on the island. This piqued his interest, and he called the hotel where Cronkite was staying 34 times to find out his room number. Cronkite eventually answered the next day, and they spoke on the phone before meeting at the hotel. During their meeting, Shaw expressed his desire to become a journalist and work for CBS alongside Cronkite. Shaw served diligently in the Marines until 1963, achieving the rank of Corporal E-4 and working as the Message Center specialist at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point base in North Carolina.

   

After leaving the Marines, Shaw enrolled at the University of Illinois in 1964, where he studied history. He would often clip newspaper articles and make frequent trips to DC. In the same year, Shaw started his broadcasting career as an anchor and reporter for WNUS in Chicago. However, his time at WNUS was brief, as he left the company after only two years to work for the Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, also based in Chicago. Shaw graduated from college in 1968 and immediately moved to DC to become the White House correspondent for Westinghouse. From 1971 to 1977, he worked as a Washington correspondent for CBS News before moving to ABC News in 1977. Shaw began his time at ABC News as a Latin America correspondent before being promoted to Capitol Hill Senior Correspondent. In 1980, Shaw departed from ABC to co-anchor Prime News at CNN, where he was among the network's first hires and served as its chief anchor. However, it was on March 30, 1981, that Shaw and CNN made history. After concluding his coverage of President Reagan's speech at the Washington Hilton Hotel, Shaw was preparing to hand over to Atlanta when a report came in that shots had been fired near the hotel. Without any confirmation of an assassination attempt on the President, Shaw maintained a calm and composed demeanor, providing only the facts of the situation to viewers. CNN was able to report on the attack four minutes before any other major news network, catapulting the network to the forefront of breaking news coverage.

In 1988, Shaw was selected to moderate the second US presidential debate between Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush, making him the first-ever African-American presidential debate moderator. However, the debate was marred by controversy over one of Shaw's questions. Going into the debate, Bush held a marginal lead in the polls, but many believed that Dukakis could overtake him with a strong performance. Shaw's opening question to Dukakis was loaded: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" This was a sensitive issue for Dukakis because he was known for his opposition to the death penalty. Dukakis' response to the question was seen as emotionless and clinical, as he focused on the policy implications of the death penalty instead of addressing the emotional impact of such a tragedy. This response contributed to the perception that Dukakis was cold and unfeeling, which hurt his campaign and ultimately led to his defeat.

Shaw was also a remarkable war reporter, best known for his coverage of the 1991 Gulf War. Alongside two other CNN correspondents, Shaw reported on the war from a hotel in Baghdad, even having to take cover under a desk as cruise missiles flew overhead. His reporting was so impressive that then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney praised CNN, saying it had the best reporting he had seen from Baghdad. Shaw's involvement in significant events didn't stop there, though. He covered the Tiananmen Square Incident in 1989, the California Earthquake of 1994, the death and funeral of Princess Diana in 1997, and even moderated the 2000 vice presidential debate.

    Shaw would eventually decide to retire from CNN in March 2001. Even though he occasionally appeared on CNN when significant news happened, such as when a plane flew into White House air space in 2005, Shaw preferred to stay out of the public eye. He had a wife and two kids and cherished spending time with them. In a 2014 interview, Shaw revealed that while he enjoyed all the success, he believed it wasn't worth all the life experiences he missed out on with his loved ones. He even said he would trade all of his success back for that time. Unfortunately, Shaw passed away on September 27, 2022, due to pneumonia. He was 82 years old.

Gotcha Journalism

Gotcha journalism, the practice of entrapping interviewees in the act of doing something scandalous or immoral, has completely taken over the media landscape in today’s world.  One example is the previous Toronto mayor Rob Ford, who was a victim in 2013 when a video of him smoking crack/cocaine was making its rounds. The video was obtained by journalists that have been stalking him for months. While using this method can result in potentially substantial money-making stories and eye-catching headlines, it also significantly impacts the individual being ridiculed. This raises the question of the ethics regarding this method and the need for fairness and privacy laws to be enacted.

Gotcha Journalism has become increasingly popular because the journalism industry is constantly pressured to produce compelling narratives and groundbreaking news. But, it is essential to remember that, particularly in iffy areas like politics, this method can be unjust and manipulative, producing a false idea that distorts the truth. Gotcha Journalism may also be very invasive since it breaches people’s right to privacy, tremendously harming subjects and their families.

Some may argue that gotcha journalism is crucial in holding celebrities accountable despite these criticisms. Journalists can promote a more open and trusting environment by calling out hypocrisy and corruption. But, the only way to properly use gotcha journalism morally, journalists must find a better approach. It’s critical to realize that this method permanently affects those caught in the moment. Targets may lose employment and face societal ambushes through harassment.

Social media has made it easier than ever to catch somebody doing anything that may be controversial because of how quickly and simply sharing films, images, and other content is. As a result, there has been an upsurge in gotcha journalism techniques. Individual news reporters and organizations will go to great lengths to draw attention to or expose wrongdoing through their found material. However, this has aided in the birth and spread of cancel culture, condemning and boycotting people or organizations thought to have acted in ways that don’t reach society’s moral standards. In some instances, cancel culture can be an effective tool to hold people accountable. But, there are also scenarios where it can be unfair, with individuals suffering serious repercussions for actions th
at may have been misinterpreted, taken out of context, or even falsified. 

Focusing on investigative journalism based on reliable evidence and ethical reporting techniques is one possible solution to this problem. This involves carrying out in-depth investigations, confirming sources, and, most importantly, properly allowing their targets a chance to refute the claims. Avoiding the theatrics and click-bait instead of intelligent, nuanced reporting is another significant part of this process. As an alternative, journalists should take the time to understand the boundaries of gotcha journalism and only use it sparingly in specific cases in a “Robinhood” sort of way. They should also examine other strategies that are less intrusive and life-ruining.

Gotcha journalism is unethical, invasive, harmful, and a potent tool for holding people accountable. As journalists, it is our responsibility to strike a balance between transparency, confidentiality, and neutrality. If completed, we may contribute to developing a modern, trustworthy, and proudly ethical media landscape. We should strive to become better journalists.