All the world's our page.

  No matter what type of news outlet you give me, I will find something I like about it. I love being informed. I love learning truth, even when it pierces. Wanting to know about what is around me, the people around me, it is immensely important. Why is it that I'm so fascinated by it? Is it simply an American thing? Could it be that, perhaps, I am a journalist at heart? I pray so.

 As it turns out, one of the most fundamental forms of news is my favorite. Newspapers have provided outlets for the journalists and inlets for a hungry world for centuries. That is, so long are literate. They provided both the first national, international, and local means for staying informed. Though they began with much confusion between their opinion, bias, and facts, newspapers still provided much more trustworthy news than word-of-mouth, often. And, journalists continue to comb and refine their papers to make them slowly, but steadily more honest and intriguing.

 Magazines, journals and such are at once distinct and similar to newspapers in many ways. They provide a similar type of news, meaning you have to read to know what's going on, and they are not produced as frequent as radio and TV broadcasts or Internet news. However, magazines are something with more depth and sometimes more entertainment than their predecessors, newspapers. Magazines and journals are also rather like books, they are written to be something to read over again, which makes them unique from every other sort of journalism.

  With electricity, many doors opened for discovery, invention, and even journalism as radio finally made an entrance. Radio news is obviously different from all written forms of news because you see and read nothing, the whole idea depends on the effectiveness of the broadcaster or journalist's voice and vocal portrayal of the news. This is not really a new or distant idea though. Word-of-mouth honestly was the first form of being informed and radio simply expands and works to make credible this form of news. Basically, radio goes back to where all of our news outlets started. 

 Television news has to be my least favorite way to stay informed. While it provides visual, audio, and sometimes reading for the viewer, it does not allow the same viewer to have much choice in what they have to see. For those who like to slowly process what they have just been exposed to, it also doesn't allow for that. In short, TV has combined many of the older news forms to give the world a quick overview of events, people, etc. It is helpful, true. I simply prefer the old-fashioned way.

 Lastly is the grand finale of all journalism and news, the Internet...At least for now ;). All of the the benefits and negativeness of all of the news forms we have ever had are now up-loaded online for everyone to pick over and decide what they want. Blogs and websites dump even more information, whether credible or not, into the news stream. Now every one's confused! Their is much room to be mislead by all of this information, their is much reason to be wary and do you're research and analyzing.  But, despite all, Internet news is probably the most useful and helpful news form in all history. Journalism is growing, and hopefully truthfulness too, through this world-wide display of the news.

   Finally, all the world's our page. Anyone and everyone can read from it. So be certain to be sharing the truth from your page, where ever and however it may be.

What about TV journalism?

   How do I keep ending up interested in the left-leaning news reporting? Oh, wait....It's right leaning this time! I promise, I'm not trying to be an instigator, it's just intriguing to hear both sides. At the same time, it is frustrating to hear both sides. They are clever, both the right and left understand that we like the controversial, strange, or flashy news. As some have said "Good news is no news." So they give us what we like. But in the midst of that, we are quietly pushed to think what they think, or see a very different picture than the real one.

 Truthfully, CBSN news presents what they choose to present rather honestly, making sure there are at least two opinions of a story in their broadcast. They may not be forthright with those opinions, but looking carefully, you can tell they are present. Over an hour of their news program I was informed on numerous types of news: weather, political, economic/stocks, entertainment, disaster. But what one showed the bias of the reporters and the CBSN news station, do you think? If you thought political, you're correct.

 You see, things like the weather, sports, business, entertainment, we generate our own opinions about each of those things, and they are important to us in our daily lives to some degree. But politics stands apart. It has it's foundation in what we believe and how we live. Our opinions about who should run our country and how they should do it, that extends to our beliefs on what is moral. Basically, it extends deep into our hearts and minds. That's why politics becomes such a battle-ground. We're supporting what we believe in, whether we see it that way or not.

 All that to say, the hour of news I viewed was plastered with discussion about Donald Trump's boycott of the last Republican GOP debate before the primaries. Repeatedly, as they discussed why he would skip the debate and whether it would effect him in the presidential race, the news reporters showed negative leaning clips of Trump and shows mocking him. Statements such as, "There has not been the scrutiny for Donald Trump as the front-runner as the front-runner has historically had." Or simply using negative words to talk about his boycott, "I am very confident if he[Trump] was five points lower he wouldn't be bailing."

 Between this onslaught of Trump news, the reporters talked about the Democratic race, giving a good portion of the time to a Bernie Sanders supporter. In fact, they did so well presenting Hillary, Sanders, and the other candidates that I had to do some research to check on whether they are liberal or not. It seems the overall view is that they are right-leaning, plus they allow Republican advertisements for Rubio, Cruz, and others, but they don't seem to like Mr. Trump in the least.

 Sadly, it is understandable that they would make fun of Trump. He can be laughable and ridiculous , that is my bias at least, and I get why they would use Trump to get people's attention.  However, that is by no means the way journalism should be. It is the kind of business that is protected by our Constitution to promote the truth, not ridicule or serve as entertainment primarily. We may have more news now, but I don't know if I can honestly say it's as fair and truthful as we like to think. Keep on your guard. There is much to learn, hear, and see, but there is also ways to be mislead in all our learning.

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....