News War

Media ethics can range from what is right to what is wrong when it comes to the actions  taken by people working in the field of journalism and mass communications. When individuals think about media ethics, their first instinct is to get angry or impatient with news networks, but it isn’t about the news networks themselves, but the standards of the actions taken by workers in the media. When taking journalism classes, the first thing one learn’s is about the ethics of what you put on paper. You have a duty to not only yourself to be true, but to others as well. 

This piece was about the ethical decisions made during the Bush Administration’s claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, otherwise known as W.M.D. The piece reiterates the advantage the government has when it wants to sell a specific point of view. This idea was fueled by the Nation’s leading newspapers, which at the time included the New York Times. It was a “conscious loop” of information being funneled from the government to journalists, to being published and then nonchalantly referenced by elected officials in public interviews. The downside of this began when journalists began realizing that their sources were feeding them false information, so not only were news outlets producing what we call today “fake news,” but it was also being preached by the White House as well. Some tried to rest their case by saying they were only as good as their sources, but that in itself is not an ethical statement. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong, but the real question was, did these reporters and these officials know that the information they were receiving was false? 

This is where the two main ethical emphases come into play. There is communitarian ethics and libertarian ethics. Communitarian ethics, in basic terms, are ethics that would improve society by sublimating personal concerns to community wishes and cooperatively making decisions that are designed to eliminate friction. Libertarian ethics  would improve society by stressing self-improvement and individual decision-making. In this case, the New York Times, their reporters and the Bush Administration were practicing libertarian ethics; they were reporting to the public in hopes to benefit themselves and profit off of what they were reporting. The reasoning behind these unethical practices was to try and justify the claim of W.M.D in Iraq that was made by President Bush. Months after this claim there were still no weapons to be found and people were beginning to question that. This is when Bush stated in his State of Union Address that Sadam Hussein had requested a large amount of uranium from the African country of Niger to further his argument about the existence of W.M.D in Iraq and even when proven false, his administration failed to correct the record. Bush’s instinct, which is the first step of moral progress, was not to stay true to the people, but to defend himself and also throw the C.I.A under the bus because he said he got his information from Central Intelligence. His custom was what was right for him, as mentioned above. The third and highest general level of morality is based on conscience, which is conduct that appears right is that which is approved by the agent’s own personally developed judgment of what is right or wrong. The conscience is developed by the person’s own reasoning, building on custom and instinct. His conscience was incorrect and immoral, unethical and as mentioned in the piece, the Bush Administration was amongst one of the most secretive, some compared his term to that of the Watergate scandal. 

Bush falls closely under the teleological ethical theory. This theory says that the person trying to decide what to do attempts to predict what the consequences will be if A is done instead of B. The object is to choose the action that will bring the most good to the party the actor deems most important, and in this case he was an egoist. 

Julian Assange

Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006; he is also recognized as an editor, publisher and activist. WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organization that publishes news leaks and highly classified media content that is provided by anonymous sources; so one can see how this event could cause many problems, and it did. WikiLeaks truly made its international debut in 2010 when it supplied leaks given by a U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. These leaks included the Baghdad airstrike Collateral Murder video, Afghanistan war logs, the Iraq war logs, and Cablegate. After all of these intense leaks, without any surprise, the U.S. Government launched a criminal investigation on WikiLeaks and Assange himself in hopes of prosecuting them under the Espionage Act of 1917. The Espionage Act was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of United States enemies during wartime. While they investigated both Manning and Assange, they found chat logs, allegedly between the two, but Assange denied it being him on the other end and Manning insisted that she acted alone. Fast forward to 2013, Assange’s case was still in question and U.S. officials deemed it unlikely that he would be indicted for publishing classified documents, because they would have to do the same to other sources that did the same such as: The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. 

Assange was being investigated by several government agencies, including the F.B.I. So, he was stuck. The United States urged other allies to open criminal investigations against him as well. The question at hand here is: was Assange doing anything wrong as a journalist under the first amendment? Under the Obama Administration, we saw this question illuminated. The Department of Justice could not find any valid evidence that would prove his actions differed from the job description of a  journalist. That trend ended quickly once Trump took office and Mike Pompeo reopened the Assange pursuit. So, in 2017, U.S. officials decided to formally make charges against Assange, which led them to start looking for witnesses; all which said the case was a form of government overreach. 

Julian Assange is facing an 18-count indictment and is being accused of soliciting and publishing classified information to try to crack a Defense Department computer password; all of these charges come up under the Espionage Act. To outline the history of this act’s use, it has never been used against a media organization since it has existed as a United States law. Although Assange has been in the business of gathering information and such documents since the founding of WikiLeaks in 2006, yet the government only cares when the information could possibly be detrimental to their reputation? Seems fishy. To give you some perspective on what type of information Assange brought to the public’s attention, one of the videos that was leaked included the U.S. Apache helicopters slaughtering dozens of people in Iraq in 2007, which contradicted claims that had been formally made by the United States. So, I guess you could say the government got their feelings hurt a little bit. The use of the Espionage Act to indict Assange raised concerns by many journalism groups that the government’s decisions were politically motivated.  

Civil War, Lincoln and The Press

During the Civil War, President Lincoln wanted to prevent those who sided with the Confederacy from leaking information to the South. The way in which he made sure this did not happen was that he forced Union generals to stop papers from publishing battle plans. He hoped that this would lead to the North wining the war, but many did not really agree with his actions and accused him of infringing upon their constitutional rights (Holzer, 2014, p. 33).

Good Night, and Good Luck.

In America, a common staple used to describe our country is “FREEDOM.” Those freedoms include: speech, press, assembly, of/from religion, etc. American’s pride themselves on a supreme law that dictates and defends its people’s rights. Many of us, though, have not taken the time to dissect the constitution since it was ratified in 1788. What most have not paid much attention to, is that small amendments have been made to our constitution overtime by supreme court rulings that must be abided by, by law. 

We spend most of our time in the classroom learning about the more “popular” amendments, for example: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (Cornell, 2020).” This item is the first amendment. Although Americans, for the most part, are allowed to say whatever they please, the Supreme Court has since noticed that someone else’s tongue can be your own worst enemy. With that being said, our speech can be seen as a catalyst that defines our actions. Those actions have the heavy possibility of being harmful. In result, the Supreme Court decided it best to regulate our speech so harm is prevented ahead of time; snaps for proactivity.

There are many, many examples that could be discussed about little loopholes in the first amendment, such as: Schenk v. United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio, and Gertz v. Robert Welch, but this movie reminds me very closely of Julian Assange's situation.


I believe the most interesting part of Assange’s prosecution is that he, personally, did not steal the information, but simply published it. So, the charges raised against him are based on actions that investigative journalists participate in on a daily basis. The First Amendment clearly states not only an American citizen’s freedom of speech, but also their freedom of press. So, where did Assange go wrong? Is he seeking attention from the American people or is he a campaigner of bringing justice to the truth? This idea is where the little loopholes of the First Amendment come into play.

This movie in particular brings attention to the government's sensitivity to its nasty secrets and it also brings like to the justice that journalists want to bring to the American people, no matter what kind of damage it brings to themselves and their workplace. To reference a specific scene in the movie, when the two Colonels came to visit Fred Friendly and basically tell him he is roaming dangerous waters if he goes through with the story; this scene alludes to The Chilling Effect. This effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. The most suppressed right by the chilling effect is said to be the First Amendment, which we clearly see in this film.

This movie brought light to how powerful journalism truly is and how impactful it is not only on the American people, but on the journalists themselves, as we saw at the end of the movie.

Christiane Amanpour EOTO

My Journo Hero

Christiane Amanpour is one of my role models in the world of journalism, today. Amanpour is currently the global affairs anchor at ABC News, but her shine does not stop there. She is also the Chief International Correspondent for CNN International, where she has her own segment, Amanpour. 

Christiane was born in west London, but lived in Tehran, where her father is from, until she was 11. After finishing primary school in Iran, she moved to England to attend boarding school. When it was time for Amanpour to move onto university, she moved to the United States to attend the University of Rhode Island to study journalism. While there, she worked for NBC news affiliate WJAR as an electronic graphic designer.

The same year she graduated college, she also earned a job at CNN as an entry-level desk assistant in Atlanta. She was just that good. During her first years as a correspondent, she was assigned to cover the Iran-Iraq War. After this, she was transferred to Eastern Europe to continue her work. She gained great distinction in Europe, but it was during the Persian Gulf War that her face became familiar. She had many memorable moments during her career, but one of her most memorable was having a phone interview with Yasser Arafat while his compound was under siege. Other moments include when she interviewed Hosni Mubarak (the only journalist to do so) and Muammar Ghadafi during the Arab Spring.

Since then she has received many awards for her amazing work. 

What is Justice Nowadays?

Let me refresh your memory on the horrific event that involved Trayvon Martin; he was a young black man who was murdered by a neighborhood watch captain who identified Martin as a "suspicious person." Zimmerman, Trayvon's killer, was advised to stay in his vehicle, but disregarded those instructions and moments later...gunshots rung. This incident dates back to February of 2012 and just recently, December of 2019, Zimmerman is suing Martin's parents for $100 million.


Not only did he take everything from this family, but he is trying to do it all over again. Justice was thought to be served, but Zimmerman had other plans in mind. As he takes this journey in suing a family for more than they are worth, he loses sight on what he has already stolen from them.

The Martin family's justice wasn't justified in the eyes of Mr. Zimmerman hence the actions he plans to further take. When you think about it, the justice system was created to ensure that justice was given to those who deserved it and the people of America are kept safe under the law, but then people like Zimmerman are able to act so hatefully and our judicial system allows it. But I guess every body has equal right under the law and a fair chance to get the justice they believe they deserve.

Ida B. Wells

African American journalist, abolitionist and feminist who led an anti-lynching crusade in the United States in the 1890s. She was born into slavery during the Civil War, but about six months later the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.Wells-Barnett started her career as a teacher, but soon became a journalist to shed light on the conditions of African Americans throughout the South. She wrote about things such as white mob violence and investigated cases of lynchings. Wells-Barnett became so well known that she traveled internationally to share her knowledge.

Ida did many things in her lifetime. She founded the National Association of Colored Women’s Club, which addressed the issues dealing with civil rights and women's suffrage. She was also considered the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). From 1898-1902 she served as secretary of the National Afro-American Council. In 1910 Wells-Barnett founded and became the first president of the Negro Fellowship League, which aided newly arrived migrants from the South. In 1913 she founded what may have been the first black woman suffrage group, Chicago’s Alpha Suffrage Club. From 1913-1916 she served as a probation officer of the Chicago municipal court.

Something I found admirable about this woman is that she was strong and she held her ground. On day when she was traveling by train from Memphis to Nashville, she was asked to move from her first class seat to the "colored" cart, even though she had already purchased her ticket fair and square. She was eventually forcibly removed and this enraged her so much that she brought a suit against the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad; the court did not rule in her favor. After this occurrence, she began to avidly right about injustices that the black community experienced. She often used the pen name “Lola” when she first began writing newspaper articles. If you don't know what a pen nam is, it is a shield allowing the author to conceal his or her identity or shake off any preconceived notions.

Wells-Barnett went through some crazy things in her life including a time when three of her friends were lynched. This led her to begin an editorial campaign against lynching. She continued as a staff writer for the New York Age and then as a lecturer and organizer of anti lynching societies.

Corona-virus Scaries

This virus has quite literally taken over the world. From China to Italy, throughout the Middle East and all the way to Wake County in North Carolina...it is affecting everyone's sanity. Students that chose to spend their semesters abroad in Europe are being sent back to their homes in the United States and their cultural journey was cut short.

Although people in America are panicking as though World War III has started, if you do the appropriate research about the Corona-Virus, it isn't as scary as people are making it out to be. You can compare it very closely with the flu. When looking deeper into what this virus truly is, one would know that it isn't an airborne disease, but a droplet disease. This means it is spread via bodily fluids. So, to all of you wearing masks everywhere you go, that doesn't prevent you from getting the "Corona scaries." If you want to take precaution, make sure you are washing your hands repeatedly throughout the day for 30 seconds at a time. If you think about it, we should be doing that anyways, but turns out...you guys are NASTY.

Washing your hands like you are supposed to with soap and warm water makes you less susceptible to contract the virus. Also, hand sanitizer doesn't count, that is anti-bacterial not anti-viral.

The media is creating quite the monster out of this virus and people are soaking it in like sponges without any thought to question it. Do your research and wash your hands, you should be fine.

Partially Partisan

Opinions. Opinions fuel perspective, they fuel conversation and now they are fueling present day political journalism. I feel like the majority of our society has lost sight of why journalism exists; why do we have news networks like Fox and CNN, why do we invest our time in reading The New York Times or The Washington Post? People don't seek out opinions, they seek out hard news; they seek out information that is important to their daily lives and to their futures.

So, why is news today a constant roast session between Republicans and Democrats? What do we as individuals learn from that? Nothing, really. Well, I should rephrase that; what *information* do we as individuals learn from that, nothing. We learn hate, we learn dishonesty, we don't learn acceptance, we don;t love, and we don't learn diversity. The news today seems to push a choice on its viewers, and that choice is one-sided; you are either right (and by right I mean you agree with their side of the story) or your absolutely, one-hundred percent wrong.

That is NOT what journalism is supposed to be. Journalism isn't jeering; journalism is judicious.

It is easy to get wrapped up in your opinions; we all do it sometimes, but it's important to have a utilitarian outlook on journalistic approaches; what is best for everyone, not what is best for a specific set of people and that is the largest issue with news today. This can also be called "journalistic objectivity," which includes qualities like fairness or nonpartisanship.

What I am trying to say is, keep your opinions at the breakfast table and bring your brain cells to the news desk. Inform the public, don't confuse them.

Frederick Douglass Defying Odds

I had previously learned about Frederick Douglass in middle school and into high school, but he was never taught in the detail that he deserved. Since being at High Point University, I have learned a great deal more about this historical icon. My sociology courses, such as media representations and black American voices, dove deep into his life and the impact not only that he had on the Black community, but also the influence he had on the realm of journalism.

Douglass was born into slavery in 1818 and escaped it 20 years later. As a black man that spent most of his life in this horrific confinement, one would think he knew nothing of how to read or write, but he defied odds. Douglass was clever and he used his cleverness discretely to gain an education from his white "friends." He traded them things to teach him how to read and write. Over the 20 years, he became very bright and surprisingly literate.

Douglass shocked many, especially whites, with his ability to write so eloquently. In my black American voices class we read his autobiography and it went into great detail about his not-so-normal life. It really opened my eyes to his daily struggle and how he truly defied all odds. 

It Is More Than Just History

Our history is taught in schools, expressed in textbooks and alluded to in popular movies, but nobody really thinks about how it lives through us in our day-to-day experiences.

The United States Constitution was written over 200 years ago, ratified in 1789 to be exact; I don't know about you but I can confidently say a lot has changed since then. A lot has changed but the values we base this country's laws on have remained the same. One might question how a vast nation  like ours is able to stay loyal to old words such as those written in our Constitution, and the answer in its entirety is found in The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and instills its purpose in the everyday lives of American citizens, no matter who they are. The kickstart and popularity of this document took flight after it was amended following the Civil War. Some may remember this to be a huge moment in history; slaves in the United States gained citizenship as well as their right to vote. Some may say the Constitution has gone slightly backwards. At one point in time, "We the People," was not embraced as a whole, and what do I mean by that? I mean, that not all people were considered in that statement at one point in time; African-Americans were not considered human beings and Native Americans had been stripped of their rights long before that. We see issues in present day with institutionalized racism and "We the People" starts to become a little fuzzy, again.



Although those words can be taken for granted occasionally, the Supreme Court has helped America solve major issues for quite some time using the 200 year old words expressed in our very own Constitution, so we must be doing something right. Along with those words, we have nine intellectual Supreme Court justices diligently working on each case they receive. Along with their well-thought out opinions, they also have law clerks to help them draft their judgements as well. The many different people that take crucial time to overlook these cases add various perspectives that ensure a fair ruling, which is what makes our history so unique.

Our Supreme Court has, and will always be, one of the most powerful bodies, not only in our nation but around the world. Not only do they create landmarks in our historical timeline, but they radiate the willingness to stand against what we see as popular opinion and societal norms in order to change the lives of those who may not have the power to do so. 

Where Do I Get my News?

Twitter is a large outlet where I find most of my news. I do not intentionally look for news on Twitter,  but as I do my daily scroll through, news pops up one post after another. Of course, I do not believe everything I see on the internet and I always have to fact check what I read, but Twitter keeps me, if anything, AWARE of not only things occurring in the United States, but on a global level as well. It also keeps me open-minded; Twitter is used by people from all walks of life who have the right to express their opinions about whatever they would like to on their feed. With that being said, as part of my daily news intake, I also get to read and learn about other people's opinion on different topics. Whether they be from Argentina or Russia!












Family is also a prominent source I look to for news. Being from Lebanon, a lot of the news that I am largely interested in is about Middle Eastern developments. Just recently, the Middle East has been booming with all kinds of governmental changes; from the murder of Qasem Soleimani to the ongoing protests in Lebanon. What better way to get my second-by-second updates then to ask someone who is experiencing these events first hand.



I get my news from various sources. It all depends on what kind of news I am seeking out. As a Greensboro local, I grew up watching Fox8 to learn about road blocks due to car accidents, school delays, crime close by, etc. Although my views do not align with the national Fox News network, political views rarely trickle down to the local news level and for that, I am thankful. Fox8 is not only timely, but they deliver non-bias important news throughout the day. They cover stories that range from yummy, local restaurant eats to horrific homicides.

Google News is a fast and easy way to get news. I just recently started to use Google news as a prominent source. It allows you to search whatever information you are looking for so you don't have to waste any time scrolling. It also has immediate updates from multiple different sources, so not only are you getting it as fast as possible, but you are also learning about the world in multiple different perspectives.






CNN is a larger news network that I use for more international based news. For example, I have the application on my phone and they send me notifications on my phone regarding important updates; this is convenient because I don't even have to open the app, all I do is read the notification and I am briefly informed. If I want to go into more detail, I can easily click and it takes me to the article. I also prefer CNN because they are more of a leftist network and that aligns with my personal political views, so I enjoy reading what they have to say