Chapter 2 of The Elements of Journalism hones in on reiterating that the most important part of journalism is the truth. The importance of truth within journalism is further developed as its importance to society is stated. The authors go as far to state that truth is innately sought after by us as humans and has been valued and prized for centuries. The authors described the importance of discovering the truth for journalists. However, their job is made significantly more difficult because they must rely on the accounts of others. It is at this point that the truth begins to become misconstrued because unless they witnessed an event firsthand, the accounts they receive are potentially biased. The difficulties that reporters face in discovering the truth remind me of the essay we are currently working on as we are evaluating the bias present in articles. However, I do not believe that the only problem that reporters face is as a result of untrustworthy witness accounts, but that in reality, many journalists display personal bias as well. This especially detrimental to the protection of the truth today because of how quickly news travels. Winston Churchill described this when he stated that “a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”.

Chapter 3 of The Elements of Journalism describes that journalist, first and foremost, should cater to the citizens. In other words, delivering the truth to them should always be the main priority. According to the authors, this imminent goal is often discolored by the desire to make a profit, often leading to the needs of the citizens being compromised. The book defines this commitment to providing citizens with truthful news as “journalistic independence”. I felt as though the reason that this name is so fitting is because often times, big news companies will force their employees to follow a certain agenda and they must therefore be independent to truly report the truth. The book then goes on to share 5 important rules that news companies must follow in order to maintain their duty of truth to the citizens. They are as follows: ” 1. The owner/corporation must be committed to citizens first, 2. hire business managers who also put citizens first, 3.  set and communicate clear standings, 4. journalists have final say over news, and 5. communicate clear standards to the public”. These rules are particularly beneficial to the audience because it helps people understand what kind of news entities they should be supporting if they value the truth. 

Do you think any large news companies today truly abide by these rules?

Chapter 4:

This section focuses on the verification of truth within the field of journalism. This section posed parallels to the previous chapters that covered the importance of the truth in journalism, but this time, regarded the importance of accuracy as well. Personally I believe that this is incredibly important and that today, since we live in a world where the news is inherently subject to bias, that we must be aware of this. One of the most impactful quotes that was present in the section was that “neutrality is not a fundamental principle of journalism. It is merely a voice, or device, to persuade the audience of one’s accuracy or fairness”. In other words, it is the caution of “bias” that people fear but in reality, what they really hope for is accuracy. The term bias has been coined out of this fear of inaccurate information. There were various ways of verification of truth mentioned that included seeking multiple witnesses, explaining as much detail about sources, and asking many for comments. Personally, I think that we can incorporate this strategies to discover the truth for ourselves as the audience because it often takes a critical eye to discover the truth in today’s media storm. I believe that this section strongly supported the audience’s right to truthful information and that journalists must make it a priority to get the facts right for the public. Transparency within the news is vital for the truth to be accessible and in the future, news companies should foster transparency over profit. 

Chapter 5:

This chapter of the book delves into Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel’s opinion that journalist are not required to be neutral, but instead, they must be independent from those they cover. In other words, it is elaborated that it is important to truthfully inform the public, without being influenced by them. It is shared that people feel like there is a divide between themselves and those who produce the news- typically due to their inability to know what they do in the same way. However, this statement, as shared by Juan Gonzalez, struck me as strange because we are able to go out and find the news sources and learn truths for ourselves-it just takes a little more effort. In fact, we have all become journalists of sorts in this class through the reporting assignments that we have done.  The book stresses that it is important that journalists fulfill their task of informing the public, but not being an activist regarding what they report. It is when these traces of bias and personal agendas come into play that people begin to have issues with the truthfulness of the news.  

Chapter 6:

Chapter 6 of this book discusses that the fundamentals of reporting, specifically investigative reporting, are rooted in the first amendment.  Because of fundamentals, journalists have a unique responsibility and power over the people they report to and the way people access information.  Because of this, they also have a responsibility to monitor that power. Journalists are forced to maintain a balance between keeping people informed while still keeping secret the most bare government secrets, as elaborated by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel when discussing the watchdog role of journalists. This is difficult because while they are meant to strive for transparency, they must be cautious of the potential consequences of sharing certain information. While I understood this, it still makes me uncomfortable as a citizen who wishes to have complete transparency in my government. However, I understand that this has much less to do with the press, and much more to do with our government. In short, investigative journalist requires the investigation of facts that are then shared with the public, but this role bears much responsibility. 

In the Politico article, “U.S. officials push for sanctions on China over oil purchases from Iran”, Eliana Johnson discusses the current U.S. objective to put further sanctions in place in order to apply pressure on Iran. Although these additional sanctions are meant to contribute to an end goal of reaching peace, Johnson expresses her disapproval of the way the situation is being handled in her article. In the article, she describes the overall U.S. goal to put pressure on Iran as well as a summary of the events preceding China’s defiance of the original sanctions. This paper will analyze the effectiveness of Johnson’s argument by examining the rhetorical strategies and appeals that she utilized to enhance the validity of her claims regarding potential U.S. sanctions on China, which are the driving force behind her argument that these actions will likely result in increased tensions abroad. Despite the lack of supporting evidence and presence of fallacious arguments, Johnson’s article is effective due to her appeal to the audience’s fear and compelling language.  

One of the weaker aspects of Johnson’s article was that she makes various claims regarding the consequences of U.S. actions abroad that are unsupported by evidence and statistics. An example this absence of evidence lies within the following excerpt from the article: “It has had some success in persuading several of Iran’s largest consumers — India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey — to curb their purchases.” This statement is void of any statistical testimony as to what “some success” truly means in regard to this progress. By failing to provide more concrete details regarding the success of these sanctions, this conclusion is left up to the audience. If Johnson has provided legitimate statistics regarding the extent of the success of the sanctions, she would have established better control of the argument. However, in this case, this lack of evidence serves to make her argument seem stronger because it makes U.S. efforts seem less successful than they are, therefore making her argument more compelling. However, when Johnson states that further sanctions would “complicate trade talks between the two countries and further strain the relationship”, she is making an assumption without any evidence to support it. This makes her main argument weaker because the claim is hinging on nothing but speculation. Additionally, by failing to support why further sanctions would result in greater tension, it weakens the logos, a persuasive device that employs logic, of her argument since there is no logical explanation for this conclusion. Simply, Johnson’s failure to provide sufficient supportive evidence weakens her argument to an extent. 

Aside from her failure to provide sufficient evidence, Johnson loses credibility as she commits various logical fallacies, or premises that no not logically support the conclusion, within her argument. For example, the claim that “China hawks on the National Security Council are now pushing for the U.S. to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese entities, a move that would complicate trade talks between the two countries and further strain the relationship”, is illustrative of the slippery slope fallacy, when the arguer claims that a dire consequence will take place without evidence. In depth, Johnson is posing the assumption that if legislative action is taken against China, that it is inevitable that their relationship with the United States, including their trade relationship, will be subverted. In making this argument, this unsubstantiated assumption of dire consequences strips Johnson of her credibility as she does not make proper arguments. In addition, Johnson also commits the red herring fallacy, that is when the author goes off on a tangent that distracts from what’s really at stake, in the statement that “Trump has repeatedly slammed it as “the worst deal in history.” His aides, meanwhile, have struggled to explain how they intend to compel or induce Iran to engage in negotiations for a deal to replace it — beyond adding still more pressure”. In choosing to focus on Trump’s commentary and the supposed lack of explanation regarding government activity abroad, Johnson is distracting from her argument regarding the potential consequences of further sanctions. This tactic is also drawing the audience’s attention to the seeming lack of control of the officials in charge, also sidetracking her argument. As a result of these fallacies, Johnson detracts from her ethos, an appeal to the audience’s ethics,and discrets herself as a source.

Aside from the flaws within Johnson’s article, her argument is effective in raising her audience’s concern and draws their support by using fear tactics, or appeals to their emotion of fear. For example, by describing the situation between the U.S. and Iran as “amid the worsening standoff over Iran’s nuclear program”, Johnson builds the audience’s concern regarding the event. By creating a frightening scene within the minds of her readers, Johnson compels them to support her stance against furthered sanctions because it provoked a fear factor. On a similar note, Johnson appeals to the audience’s fear through language and the threat of impending tension by stating that “China’s continuing defiance would seem to undercut the Trump administration’s claim that its efforts to squeeze Iran are working”. The previous excerpt from Johnson’s article exemplifies her renewed application of this fear tactic, while also appealing to the audience’s pathos, or sense of emotion, because it heightens the stress of the situation by insinuating that it is only worsening. This statement is also building up her logos because she explains that China’s actions insinuate that the U.S. has been ineffective thus far. Simply, through her integration of the fear tactic, Johnson was able to compel her audience to support her argument. 

In addition to the incorporation of fear tactics, Johnson also makes her argument more compelling to the audience through the application of incriminating diction and tone. An example of this lies within the statement that U.S. officials “have struggled to explain how they intend to compel or induce Iran to engage in negotiations for a deal to replace it”. This tone makes the authorities involved in the matter seem incapable of solving the problem, therefore making their decisions seem less reasonable. By discrediting the officials in charge of easing the tensions and avoiding conflict, Johnson’s argument that their actions to increase sanctions seems more stable and reliable. Similarly, Johnson also uses a similar tone when referring to President Trump, “but many Iran analysts consider them politically impossible for Iranian leaders to accept — and Trump has at times brushed them aside”. This exemplifies the same tactic that was previously outlined because the tone and language clearly shows Johnson’s lack of respect for these official’s choices. In specific, the tone of the word “brushed” in regard to the handling of the situation sounds unprofessional, leading the audience to further support Johnson’s seemingly more “rational” point of view. This specific argument is particularly well oriented for audience members who are already displeased with the current political status and those who oppose President Trump. To summarize, through the application of loaded language and condemning diction, Johnson’s argument became more effective. 

In conclusion, Johnson’s argument was overall effective, regardless of her inclusion of various fallacies, lack of evidence and loaded language. Her stance regarding the U.S. decision to push for more sanctions is against this action on the grounds that it will only incite further conflict. In order to compel her audience of this stance, Johnson uses faulty logic to make the situation seem worse as well as discrediting the officials in charge of the matter. While her incorporation of logical fallacies takes away from her credibility, Johnson’s argument is still effective due to the emotional response she evokes from her audience, in favor of her argument. 

As a society, the news is regarded as a vital source of information that individuals are considered responsible for staying up to date with. However, due to the dubious credibility of news sources today, there is reasoning to support a rejection of the status quo, encouraging the public to refrain from reading the news. The discussion regarding whether or not people should pay attention to current news sources is a controversial one as the benefits of this task are more closely examined. Due to bias and political agendas corrupting the majority of news sources today, some individuals have deemed current news as unnecessary and unproductive. In comparing the views of various authors who share a similar dissatisfaction with modern news platforms, I was able to dissect some similarities in their opposition to these sources. This paper will examine the commonalities between the ideas of various authors regarding the credibility of the news and the extent to which it should be relied upon, in comparison to my personal experiences with the news and how it should evolve in the future. 

In comparing the beliefs of various authors who oppose a reliance on modern news sources, some similarities in their reasoning were apparent. One argument that they all seemed to share was the belief that news should be consumed in finite sources. For example, John Zeratsky, in his article “Why it’s More Important Than Ever to Ignore the News”, expresses his concern that “If you spend all day obsessing over bad news, when will you have time to do anything about it?” (Zeratsky). In other words, devoting too much time to staying informed could potentially lead to inactivity when it matters. This dilemma can be broken down into this simple analogy: someone could dedicate endless hours to researching learning to surf but will not have any success until they chose to take action and try it themselves. In order to incite any change, individuals must not dedicate too much time relying on the news but instead choose to take action when they feel change is necessary. Authors Jack Shafer and Brett and Kate McKay offered various suggestions regarding how to avoid falling into a rabbit hole of endless news articles online. Jack Shafer, in his article “Why Print News Still Rules” suggests that readers opt for printed news sources instead of online platforms in order to efficiently catch up on the news. In specific, he states “newsprint has the power to focus me. It blocks distractions. Give me 20 minutes with the newsprint version of the Times and I’m convinced I could clobber anybody in a news quiz who used the same time reading from the Times website” (Shafer). That is, Shafer champions newspapers over online platforms due to his belief that it allows him to more effectively absorb the information. Overall, all of these authors agree that people should limit the amount of time they devote to reading the news in fear that it will lead to decreased productivity, both in their personal lives and in regard to political and civil action. Another opinion shared by the authors is the idea that perhaps, people only choose to read the news out of a feeling of implied social responsibility. This idea is voiced by Brett and Kate McKay in their article “Is There Any Reason to Keep Up With the News?” and supported with evidence from a psychological study, making their argument more compelling. John Zeratsky shares this notion as he states that “the breaking news runs on a very potent myth: You need to know what’s going on around the world, and you need to know now” (Zeratsky). In essence, these authors share the idea that people only remain connected with the news in order to fulfill a sense of social responsibility that in turn, decreases their daily productivity. A common theme among the ideas of these authors is that they feel as though an excessive interest in the news is too time consuming and not worthwhile. In short, while each author had a different motivation for composing their articles regarding their opposition to the news, they all shared similar ideals concerning an excessive devotion to reading the news. 

In contrast to the opinions of the aforementioned authors, I still consider the news an important source of information in society today, but agree that the current news system is flawed. Initially, I felt as though I would strongly disagree with the author’s opinions due to the potency of their titles in opposition to the news. However, after analyzing their articles, I realized that none of them encouraged their audiences to actually stop reading the news, but instead suggested better alternatives to online news consumption as well as ways to limit the amount of time spent reading the news. One suggestion, as listed by John Zeratsky in his article, is one that I personally abide to and encourage. Zeratsky advises his audience to “Sign up for a daily news summary email” (Zeratsky) in order to quickly and efficiently stay up to date. My advocacy of choosing finite news sources stems from my experience attempting to stay informed while juggling a busy schedule. For the most part, all of the authors value some form of the news and for this reason, I found their chosen titles to be erroneous and divisive, hypocritical for an article regarding the biased nature of news sources today. In addition, I strongly disagree with the stance that not reading the news is socially irresponsible. In fact, as I was reading Tim Ferriss’ 4 Hour Work Week, I found myself being particularly appalled at his belief that reading the news takes away from his ability to be productive and that if something is important, he would hear about it from others. Ironically, this author and his stance on the news was referenced in a positive light in John Zeratsky’s article as he listed ways to limit news consumption. This idea was also shared by Brett and Kate McKay when it is stated that “With the time I save in not following the news more… I personally find works on philosophy, history, sociology, science, and so on ultimately much more edifying and educational — more pertinent both to my personal and professional goals — than the news. While the truth of the news expires each 24 hours, such books often stay relevant for several years, and even centuries, and spark my mind in ways the news never does” (McKay). My opposition to this statement lies within the fact that the purpose of the news is not to allow individuals to reach their personal educational goals, but instead inform them about current events. Understanding the political and social state of our society cannot be achieved through reading books that were written in the past. While we must be aware of the past in order to better the future, we must also be aware of the current status of our society in order to continue to progress. This is especially true in our current world where our society and technology is constantly evolving. Without an understanding of the direction that our world is headed, people will fall behind in more than just one aspect of their life. Another reason that staying informed is critical to the well-being of our society is that in America, we have a democratic political system that is fueled by the votes of citizens. Without an awareness of current politics and world events, this system is put at risk. Essentially, while it may not be immediately obvious, the news plays a significant role in our society and without it, people would lack guidance and awareness. Simply, while I agree with the authors to some extent in regard to limiting the amount of time spent on the news, I still believe that the news is a valuable resource that is a necessary tool in order to be aware of current events.

As for how the role that the news should have in society in the future, steps must be taken to increase the validity of the information being distributed as well as the way the information is presented to the public. My suggestion as to how individuals can uncover the truth within the news would be by gathering as many reports of the same event and dissecting the facts from each one. By comparing the various recounts of the same event, the similarities between them should lead to a clear understanding of what actually occurred. Deciphering the truth within the news when there is doubt regarding the validity of a source is similar to a scavenger hunt of sorts. In the future, news platforms must be proactive in setting guidelines for journalists in regard to ensuring that the evidence provided within articles is accurate, statistically significant and reliable. There should be a push for more stringent rules to be assigned to the disbursement of information into society because as a society, we should value truth and transparency. Another aspect of news platforms that should be improved in the future is the design. As expressed by Jack Shafer, “Don’t completely forsake the design language that made newspapers great and informed readers for generations…Don’t try to trap me on your site like a rat in a maze, forever clicking…direct the reader to that which is vital, tease him with that which is entertaining and frivolous, and give him a sense of a journey completed by the time he hits the last pages” (Shafer). In other words, as printed news become increasingly obsolete, online news platforms should cater to the practical needs of their viewers and choose to clearly display the pertinent information rather than choosing to drown their audiences in a pool of information. News sites today are losing sight of their responsibility to the public to inform them of critical events. In the future, I hope to see a distancing of entertainment news from news platforms and a greater emphasis on significant social, political and fiscal events. In other words, modern news platforms today have become corrupt with bias, clickbait articles and articles riddled with inaccurate information and it is my hope that in the future, news sites will better cater to their audiences by focusing on delivering concrete, reliable information. 

In short, as a result of the lack of reliable news sources in today’s society, many individuals have turned away from the news or greatly limited their news consumption.  However, the importance of staying up to date with current events should not be completely discouraged as it is still important for individuals to know what is going on around them. In order to navigate the news today, it is important to think about the information critically and decide whether or not it can be relied upon. It is important to be aware of potential bias but still continue to stay up to date with current events in order to contribute to society in a positive way and make a difference. There are a variety of ways to not become overly consumed by the news while still remaining informed. As the news continues to evolve in the future, platforms should focus on increasing credibility and accuracy as well as becoming more user friendly and practical. The news shapes a significant portion of our society today and will continue to do so in the future, therefore it should not be disregarded.