Radio News Today

  In all honesty, I don't know what to say. As I listened to this broadcast, I thought it sounded founded and credible. Mara Liasson seemed to present both sides of the issue briefly and factually. Yet, as I dug deeper, I found something that seemed deceptively simple and honest was only a front for a common story.

  Mara Liasson reported on the latest Republican GOP debate in a broadcast by NPR Media on January 15, 2016. She listed a few of the issues presented to the candidates on the platform, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Bush, and Kasich. Catching an otherwise bored audience, she drew attention to the scuffle, or rather "the brawl" as NPR put it, between Trump and Cruz. While Mrs. Liasson later pointed, that "...The spotlight remained on Trump and Senator Cruz...".

  Searching for background about her, the news station, and the debate she reported on, I found it interesting that Mara Liasson is more Left-leaning in her opinions. This also goes for NPR. But surprisingly, they reported on a Republican debate. This made it clear that I needed to find other opinions about this issue to see if she was as credible and unbiased as she seemed. A long story short, I only ran into more bias wherever I looked, so I watched the Republican GOP debate myself. Surprisingly, but sort of sadly, I watched the debate run almost smoothly. Each candidate received questions and chances to speak on important issues applying to our country, and though it is obvious they are each competitive and dislike each other (to a degree), they generally held to the rules of the debate.

 I suppose I shouldn't have been this shocked about this stretched version of the story, but the truth remains that we should not trust everything we hear, or watch, or are told. Be informed, wise, thorough people. If possible, look at things first hand to generate your own views. As much as our news and news reporters project themselves as only giving the facts, it is only honest to admit that we still like the exciting, unique news from them. This leaves our informers an open door to stretch the truth to make it interesting or pertaining to certain people groups. And we must realize that everyone is biased to a degree. The only way to truly understand and learn from the news is by looking at it from a variety of opinions, and thinking critically about them. It takes more effort, more time, more work, yes. But, an informed and educated people is what we must strive to be, nonetheless.

  Simply challenge, even the things you think or know are truth. You will find it either flawed and shaky, or you will find what you believe founded and something to stand even taller upon. Analyzing things for truth is never a wasted effort.

Here is the link for the radio broadcast by NPR.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=463146182&m=463146183&live=1

A Letter to Popular Science

Dear Popular Science,
   I recently read your article on the Iceman of the Alps and found it engaging and well-written. Discovering so much about our history from the remains of some one's stomach is fascinating. Or at least I find it facsinating. And being able to trace the patterns of human travel around the globe, simply by a virus, makes my mind race with all the other possibilities this discovery could mean for the future of uncovering history. Previously, I had not heard about the Iceman, so the small background on him is appreciated.

 It seemed that this article lacked varying viewpoints, though. Do other opinions exist among the scientists working on this project such as, Is this inhumane? Did this virus come from some other location? Or, is there dispute surrounding the origin of the Iceman? Science and history both have large margins of error, where it is often uncommon to find something that we can hold up and say it is undeniably truth and fact. The way this article is written, it appears that everything stated is fact, when there may very well be doubt surrounding him. This goes for the heritage of both the Iceman and the virus H. pylori, too. They are both assumed to be evolved to their present state. Evolution is just a theory, an opinion, held by some, and it seems hard to believe that there are not other scientists and historians, even working on this project, who voice differing opinions about how this virus and Iceman came to be.

 I understand that including other opinions and ideas leads to a greater workload. Not to mention there are probably so many of them that it would be nearly impossible to ever entertain all those ideas. Also, I understand that everyone, in their own way, has bias, no matter how hard they try to be impartial. Still, presenting both sides of the story is vital in the news. News is there to inform us and challenge us to think. And in the end it's alright if it doesn't give us all the answers, we now must think for ourselves. That's a blessing, not a curse.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
              Elizabeth Menard

Are the Newspapers Still in Business?

  Over the past decades it has become evident that the business for newspapers, especially local ones, is dwindling away, as TV, online, and radio news becomes more popular. Small, free papers are rather uncommon, and it seems almost old-fashioned to see a newspaper sitting on some one's coffee table anymore. It appears the glory days of the newspaper are over.

 However, others disagree with the idea that "The sky is falling and newspapers are always dying." Some large newspapers are still doing well for themselves, like The Wall Street Journal that is watching it's subscription numbers climb, and with it, their revenue. Caroline Little, NAA president and CEO, states that "Our industry’s business model has changed dramatically in the past half-dozen years. In 2007, 80% of newspaper media revenue was generated from advertising. In 2013, less than half of total revenue (46%) was from advertising in the daily and Sunday print newspaper."

 So if newspapers' historic way of earning money is decreasing, what fills the gap? Well, firstly, advertising still accounts for half of the newspaper businesses revenue, which remains a large portion, even though it's lessened. Classifieds, with smaller businesses or individuals selling or trading products, pay for much off smaller, local newspapers. And there are also personal ads which are requests for services, or sometimes products, almost the opposite of classifieds. Still, the greatest filler of the gap for newspapers that are now depending less on advertising is subscriptions. "What is...true is that the public’s thirst for news keeps rising." Caroline Little reminds us.

 Deborah Waltenburg in a way, agrees with this statement, but realizes it goes further than just wanting news."While advertisements, subscriptions and inserts bring in revenue, newspapers only make money because they offer something that readers want: worthwhile content." No matter how much or how little newspapers make from advertising, classifieds, personal ads, subscriptions, etc. their greatest profit will be from sharing honest, important, and interesting news. News remains the biggest money-maker for newspapers. Isn't that the way it should be?

A Definition of News: What is News?

 Well, in most people's minds, news is simply information. It educates them about the world they live in, and how to respond to it. But isn't that an immensely broad definition? Can't that lead to confusion, especially when you are a journalist, about what you should actually be listening to or sharing? Whatever news is, it's definition needs to be narrowed down.

  The origin of the word news sheds some light on this definition. It stems from English, French, Latin words, such as new, novelty, and new things. Basically, news is spreading the word about new things, events, ideas, discoveries, etc. to everyone. News is really new information, not just information period.

 "News reports don't change the world. Only facts change it, and those have already happened when we get the news." Friedrich Durrenmatt, a Swiss author wrote. This further shows what news is, or at least should be. We are hounded, continually, on all sides with pointless nonsense, which is simply gossip most of the time. But there must be a stark difference between that and news. News must proclaim facts and truth to the world, not be the "...industrialization of gossip." (Andrew Marr) News should never stoop to dabble in that kind of communication. Unfortunately, we still need some reforms in this area. We have plenty of new information, but it is not always the case in news and journalism that it is factual, truthful information.

  It may yet be a broad definition, but news is clearly and simply, new information about facts which the world -which we- should know. It is what you hear, or watch, or learn from friends and family, or read that informs you. "Well, news is anything that's interesting, that relates to what's happening in the world, what's happening in areas of the culture that would be of interest to your audience."
Kurt Loder, an American journalist, put it. It is something that challenges you to think, too. News must spread knowledge, honesty, prudence, and truth wherever it goes. In other words, if we are sharing news, and not burdening people with gossip or nonsense, then we are sharing truth, everyday, to the best of our knowledge. That is a powerful gift to give! So be gracious, but do not be silent!

Words of history....