Sensationalism: A growing threat to sports media

By Max Rayman

Turn on a sports network and more than likely it will be some type of debate format. ESPN’s First Take, which started to embrace that system in 2012, has become the poster child.

Now, most sports shows have the host in some capacity yelling at their co-host or the listeners for dramatic effect. Entertainment and sensationalism have started to take precedence over analysis and statistics, with more and more sports shows following suit.

Longtime CBS sports broadcaster Greg Gumbel was vocal in his disapproval of how sensationalism has taken over sports media.

“First of all, it’s not journalism. It’s sensational by all means,” Gumbel said. “It seems that someone in the genre comes up with something off the wall to say every day. After a while, you tend to realize that’s the point. The point is to be surprising and amazing and something you’ve never heard before. Then 24 hours later they take the complete opposite approach.”

Despite his displeasure with how the sports media landscape has begun to embrace sensationalism, viewership continues to increase for these programs. According to the Sports Business Journal, in December of 2023, First Take averaged 611,000 viewers, which was a 24% increase from the prior year.

Not to be outdone by their rival network, Fox Sports (FS1) posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that three of their shows all had record months in December of 2023. Both The Herd and First Things First recorded their most-watched month ever, while Speak had its second most-watched month ever.

But what exactly about these programs, is leading to viewers continuously tuning in? Why are spectators allowing sensationalism to take over the sports media landscape?

Gumbel is also baffled at how invested viewers have become.

“What is with the people who are listening in who feel that they are learning something?” Gumbel said. “That this is something they need to have and want to track and follow.”

Recently, during the 2024 NBA All-Star Weekend, the All-Star game was under heavy scrutiny due to a lack of effort from the player’s side. For the first time in NBA All-Star history, a team recorded over 200 points in the game. Stephen A. Smith, the host of ESPN’s First Take, on his show, called the lack of defense a “travesty”. Other sports hosts repeatedly agreed that the event was borderline unfixable, and few offered possible solutions.

Once again, sensationalism was present, which wasn’t necessary – but that has been the issue. How do sports hosts toe the line between being entertaining and not at the expense of compromising accuracy? Gumbel wasn’t sure if that was possible.

“Who’s toeing the line?”, Gumbel asked. “I don’t think hosts care if they are toeing the line or not. That means you would lean on their superiors to know if they are toeing the line or not and you know what, if they are getting ratings they don’t care if they are toeing the line. They are doing what they are supposed to do. It’s this wicked circle that comes back around looking for what you’re trying to accomplish. If that’s what you’re trying to accomplish and you know that’s what they’re trying to accomplish, then whose got room to argue?”

Sensationalism is growing and continuing to sneak its way into sports media, and sadly for now, there is no possible solution on the horizon.

-30-

Careful what you ‘Post’: the future of social media for journalists

By Violet Smale

The internet acts as a sort of formaldehyde preserving who we used to be. We swipe, we post, and we repost, mindlessly accumulating a digital footprint that cannot be erased.

Surely, this is an issue at the forefront of many Gen-Z minds as we enter a cut-throat job market. As we send in our job applications, we ask ourselves: what’s out there that will resurface when my name is Googled?

For present and future journalists, our looming “digital footprint” is a daunting thought.

I am haunted by stories such as Emily Wilder’s 2021 termination by The Associated Press. For anyone unfamiliar with Wilder’s story, let me summarize: the 22 year-old reporter was fired after just two weeks of reporting for the outlet on the grounds of “violating the news outlet’s social media policy,” the Poynter Institute for Media Studies reported. While the details remain somewhat fuzzy, Wilder suspected the surfacing of her past tweets supporting Palestine led to her termination. The AP refutes that claim, instead stating Wilder violated social media guidelines while she was employed by the company.

Whatever instance led to Wilder’s controversial termination by the AP, the case raises an important point for all journalists to consider: we cannot use social media in the same way as everyone else. When one becomes a member of the press, they forsake certain privileges of everyday life. Posting is one of them.

Frankly, I believe it’s unfair that our past follows us around (assuming said “past” isn’t anything discriminatory or harmful). We can’t look into the future to see how one 250-character post will impact our future career. But this is our reality. We have to stop and think: in an age in which the internet has become a mindless pastime, how do we as journalists proceed more thoughtfully?

To clarify what is expected of a journalist’s social media conduct nowadays, I turned to the The Washington Post, a publication that has also had its fair share of social media controversy.

Among The Post’s thorough guidelines, one sentence stood out to me: “Our newsroom’s diversity strengthens our journalism, and Post journalists can bring their backgrounds, identity and experiences to their social accounts. It is not appropriate to use your social media account to advocate for causes, issues, governmental policies or political or judicial outcomes. Also, avoid curating your feeds in ways that suggest you have a partisan point of view on an issue The Post covers.”

When you are hired by an outlet as renowned as The Washington Post, of course you expect to forsake some of the autonomy you have over your social media presence. However, I don’t think we should wait to be hired by a national news outlet to become more conscious and professional in our social media habits. I believe in order to become more consistent journalists, this precedent must be set now, regardless of where one stands in their career.

We cannot erase the past, but going forwarrd we can set—or must set—a new precedent.

-30-

The Burden of the Paywall Falls on Innocent Shoulders

By: Anna Retzlaff

In the 1990s, the early days of the internet, most sites were free to visit. For news outlets, print subscriptions and advertisements brought in all the cash. Very few asked their online audience to pay.

The Wall Street Journal was the first major publication to implement a paywall for its online newspaper. In 1996, the yearly fee was $49, or $29 for print subscribers. The WSJ remained an outlier for charging their audience — until about 20 years later.

In the 2010s, print subscriptions continued to decline, and online advertisement revenue was not cutting it. More and more people were turning to screens for their daily news. Then, readers started to see paywalls instead of articles.

For years, people had access to the information they wanted from the outlet of their choice for free. Now, some of the largest publications like The New York Times operate on a subscription model. Full access to their website now costs $25 per month. Today, the WSJ charges $39 per month. Subscribing to just these two publications could put a reader back $768 a year.

The problem here is paywalls prevent people from accessing information.

The news is for the public, and journalists work to serve them. For the newspaper to function, they need to cover what it costs for journalists to get that news to the public. This is a big issue, but the answer is not paywalls.

We are in a whirlwind of misinformation, lack of trust towards news outlets and poor media literacy. So much quality, trustworthy news is locked away from those who cannot pay. Publications with a reputation of integrity and truthfulness are the ones many people want to look to for information.

It is a tragedy that only people who can pay are able to access the news outlets they want to go to. News that people feel they can trust is less accessible. That fact undermines the entire basis of what journalism means. Journalists work hard to report what people have a right to know.

The news was never meant to be hard to get, and the public should not be limited in the information they can access from newspapers. Who are the newspapers for, if not for everyone?

Pursuing an Unforgiving Career Path: Journalism is Witnessing Increasing Layoffs

By Max Rayman

In 2018, I graduated with a degree in Criminal Justice, but decided to pursue a different career path. With an open elective, I took an advanced sports writing class which put my life on a completely different course. That summer I started writing for a sports blog and by January of 2020, I had become a site-editor for FanSided’s Washington Nationals site.

Fast forward to now, and I am five months away from graduating with a master’s in journalism. Despite not having any prior journalism experience, I took a leap of faith and have yet to regret my decision.

Unfortunately, I have started to notice an unsettling trend. More and more journalism publications have begun downsizing. Just this past weekend, the Wall Street Journal made cuts to its Washington bureau. In January, Sports Illustrated announced they were going to lay off most of their staff. The LA Times also reduced its personnel last month, cutting almost 20% of its newsroom. In 2023, both the Washington Post and The Athletic made cuts to their organization, and sadly this is just the beginning. According to Kierra Frazier of Politico, over 500 journalists were laid off in January alone.

“The job cuts come after an already bleak year. The news industry shed 3,087 digital, broadcast, and print news jobs in 2023 — the highest annual total since 2020, when 16,060 cuts were recorded,” Frazier wrote.

Selfishly, when I read that statistic, I became fearful. But not fearful for the journalism industry, but for myself. As a 28-year-old who will be starting the job search soon, how do I get my foot in the door, when I am competing against plenty of talented reporters and journalists who have more experience but were unexpectedly let go? I dedicated the majority of my early to mid-20s to chasing a dream and I don’t want the last six years to go to waste.

Pushing my personal fears aside, what’s next for the industry? How can these publications continue to work at a high level with a reduced workforce? I am not the only one with these worries.

“What concerns me is with all of these losses and this loss of coverage is that it’s only going to fuel more misinformation and disinformation into communities,” Tim Franklin, senior associate dean at Northwestern’s Medill journalism told Politico. “How do you then combat that challenge?”

In addition to mounting layoffs, multiple publications held walkouts over the past 12 months due to pay issues and the pending layoffs. The LA Times had a 24-hour walkout after it was announced they were going to downsize – the first time since they started printing in 1881. Unfortunately, the higher-ups still went through with the layoffs despite their employee’s vocal disagreement.

There will always be a need for journalists, and I am excited about what the future holds for me, yet this is an unforgiving industry. The ongoing layoffs shouldn’t be seen as a deterrent, but instead as a brutal reminder that this career path can be at times remorseless. But if everything in life was easy, then where would the fulfillment come from?

With great power comes great responsibility: A journalist’s role in reporting the truth

by Lilly Keller

One of the first lessons I learned as a student journalist was only to report what I could unequivocally verify. At the time, I found it funny that my professor dedicated an entire lesson to such an intuitive concept. Wasn’t the very essence of journalism to make the truth accessible to the public?

Before winter break, the idea of resorting to deception to sell a story had never crossed my mind. Then I began reading “And the Band Played On” by American journalist Randy Shilts.

Published by St. Martin’s Press in 1987, the over 600-page book is one of the first comprehensive histories of the AIDS epidemic. Built on Shilts’s relentless reporting at The Advocate and San Francisco Chronicle, the book delves into the people and politics that played a crucial role in bringing the AIDS virus under control.

Although dense at times with complex medical terms and harrowing images of young men whittled away by disease and ignored by their government, I couldn’t put the book down. However, the narrative of Canadian flight attendant Gaétan Dugas haunted me.

Characterized by Shilts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as “patient zero,” Dugas is depicted as deliberately spreading AIDS and eventually labeled as “the person who brought AIDS to North America.” Without a second thought, I, like readers in 1987, bought into the narrative and felt contempt toward Dugas. Why would Shilts make up something so horrific?

Shortly after the book’s publication, Dugas, who died in 1984, became synonymous with front-page headlines. “The Appalling Saga of Patient Zero” read TIMES magazine, “The Man Who Gave Us AIDS” announced The New York Post and “The Columbus of AIDS” displayed The National Review. However, Shilts’s portrayal of Dugas is knowingly distorted. From omitting anecdotes of Dugas refusing sex due to his AIDS status and telling friends, whom Shilts interviewed for the book that he would keep Dugas anonymous, Shilts constructed a version of Dugas that diverged from reality, presenting a characterization so sensational that it would capture the attention of the general public.

Trust from sources is essential for accurate news, especially when portraying marginalized communities. By betraying sources’ trust without warning, Shilts perpetuates a cycle of apathy and insensitivity—an attitude that prevented the media from taking the epidemic seriously.

Furthermore, the CDC study that Shilts relied on initially identified Dugas as patient O, indicating his origin as outside California rather than as the virus’s epicenter in North America. However, a typo turned O into zero, contributing to the confusion in the paper trail. Still, without fact-checking or contacting the study’s lead investigator, Bill Darrow, Shilts reported on the information at face value, contributing to the confusion and distortion of the truth.

Years after Shilts’s death in 1994, the book’s editor, Michael Denneny, would confess to consciously vilifying Dugas in the book and its publicity campaign to stimulate sales.

“It’s the worst kind of yellow journalism. I admit I got my hands dirty,” Denney said in an interview with Xtra magazine. “Randy was horrified. He didn’t want to do it but I pointed out to him that if we didn’t no one would read the book and we’d sell 5,000 copies that would end up collecting dust on the shelves.”

As journalists, we must acknowledge our position of power and consider it critically. Shilts’s reporting for “And The Band Played On” rendered visible an illness and the hundreds of thousands of lives it took yet perpetuated a false narrative. When readers cannot trust journalists and their work unequivocally, society risks embracing misinformation, rendering our journalistic purpose useless.

In the 36 years since “And The Band Played On” was published, there has been no correction or official acknowledgment of Shilts’s and St. Martin’s Press falsehoods beyond Denneny’s admission. Gaétan Dugas’s exoneration through genetic testing doesn’t negate the harm depicted in his narrative, serving as a stark reminder of the damage caused when journalists prioritize acclaim over truth.

 

-30-

Chronicles of Tomorrow’s Storytellers: Students Need to Pursue Journalism

By Adit Jaganathan

 There is a certain power in crafting stories that keep readers engaged while giving them valuable information. Imagine having the ability to inform the public about events that could potentially change the course of their lives. That’s what journalists do every day.

The world we are living in is characterized by urgency and impatience. Everyone wants everything at the touch of a button, and that includes information. The role of journalism has never been more crucial. As we navigate the intricate web of news and narratives, the need for more students to pursue journalism is urgent. An influx of budding journalists is necessary for a society that seeks to stay informed, engaged, and empowered. So, hopefully, this blog will at least make some of you consider pursuing a career in journalism.

Journalists Are Warriors

At its core, journalism is the pursuit of truth. This world is rife with the spread of misinformation, and journalists are the defenders of the truth. We are trained in the art of ethical and factual storytelling, and we are armed with the power of words. We shield our people and the democracy from manipulation by acting as watchdogs for those in power. We hold them accountable for their actions, with our impartial and unbiased reporting. We have to be cutthroat in our pursuit of the truth, sifting through all the guff and delivering compelling stories, no matter what kind of backlash we may suffer.

Journalists Can Bring Change

Journalism has the transformative power to change a society. Journalists bring attention to a society’s problems. Our stories of injustice, inequality, and other issues can spark conversations that lead to change. We tell stories about the human experience, which resonate with readers who suffer in the same way. This helps bring people together to stand against the injustices they have faced.

Journalists Are Globetrotters

Journalism can take you around the world. We pursue stories that can take us to every corner of the globe. We meet people from various backgrounds and nationalities and tell their stories. We look for stories that aren’t being told by people who aren’t being heard.

Journalists Are Multifaceted, Adaptable, and Creative

Journalism students are equipped with a host of different skills that help them do their job. We learn how to create different forms of media that help us tell our stories. Whether its text, photos, videos, or audio, studying journalism gives you the opportunity to learn new skills and hone your craft. It also allows you to report about whatever you want to. There’s an abundance of stories to be told in every industry, and it’s a journalist’s job to find them and inform the public in creative, accurate, and compelling ways.

The reason more students should pursue journalism is because of the industry’s relevance and transformative power. Journalists aren’t merely talking heads; we’re architects of public discourse and opinion. As guardians of democracy, champions of truth, and storytellers of the human experience, we navigate and adapt to the complexities of the digital age with integrity. We pursue stories that matter, commit to accuracy, and serve as catalysts for change.

 

Algorithms: a Friend or Foe?

by Jana Simovic

The world of journalism isn’t a stranger to algorithms; we encounter them every day whether it’s research results we receive from search engines or content we see on social media.  For me at least, it’s as if algorithms have become one of those friends that no matter how often I encounter, whenever someone asks me to explain exactly what it is they do for work, I’m at a loss for words.

For context, Britannica defines an algorithm as a “systematic procedure that produces—in a finite number of steps—the answer to a question or the solution of a problem.”

In terms of news dissemination, there has been an undeniable rise in concerns regarding the kind of influence these “systematic procedures” have on people’s initial receptions and perceptions of news as more than eight in ten adults in the United States get their news from digital devices — like smartphones, tablets and computers, according to the Pew Research Center.

These influences have been given numerous monikers, ranging from misinformation, echo chambers and filter bubbles (if your curiosity has peaked, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism has an interesting “Future of Journalism” podcast episode on their research into people’s attitudes towards news consumption).

I had the opportunity to talk with Elaina Plott, a national political reporter and current staff writer at the Atlantic, who is no stranger to reporting on topics and people who are directly tied to the increasing bouts of misinformation we see. Plott explains her concerns, “I think I see more issue now is that with a lot of these platforms, the ease with which one can just sort of curate their own reality. And the algorithm can sort of cater to them immediately with content that they know sort of already corresponds with what they’ve expressed interest in,” she said. “I see that now is more damaging than anything else.”

This plays directly into the rise of mistrust in media outlets, making it essential that reporters think about how to approach topics that will inevitably be found on distribution platforms, like social media — a space where content is distributed solely based on algorithms — to make sure that it has the ability to reach anyone, regardless of algorithmic influence.

When Plott and her colleagues attempt to perform an “autopsy” — which she describes as working backward on a piece of misinformation — on how a certain falsehood has spun out of control, it can be challenging to see how it was even given rise in the first place. An example of this is analyzing how the use of Ivermectin was endorsed by far-right groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was simply a result of a generic fact being spun out of context.

It’s a journalist’s responsibility to consume a variety of news sources, making efforts to read and see as many sides to a story or topic as possible and to acknowledge biases along the way. However, for anyone else this may not be a reality whether it’s due to lack of time, patience or simply lack of media literacy, “In a healthy democracy, I do think citizens would have a baseline level of trust in, you know, major media outlets, but that’s unfortunately not the case anymore,” said Plott.

For Chicago-based education reporter Sarah Karp, there has been a realization regarding the importance of journalists’ presence on social media in terms of reaching audiences as it has evolved into a space where news breaks and is discussed at length.

At the end of the day, reporters need to make efforts not only to cover daily events but also to step back and help people see these topics and events in context through a fuller picture, according to Karp.

“The real value of good reporting is when you can kind of help people see that what’s happening today, you know, happened before and what happens then,” said Karp. This is achieved by staying true to facts, data and history.

By using this mindset, Karp can bring audiences into the world of a special education aid within a school or into the kind of environment that is found in a Muslim day school that received a threat. In the same way, Plott can analyze the granular ways in which national politics manifests in people’s lives while trying to understand major trends through small communities, making both her and Karp renowned reporters no matter how an algorithm interacts with their work.

Algorithms are undoubtedly a significant factor in the way that news is perceived today, making it essential to understand and work with them. However, approaching anything with a starkly polarized view rarely yields positive results; perhaps the best method of approaching algorithms is with the impartial mindset that is ingrained within us; as neither friends nor foes. Instead working to provide true depictions, facts, analyses and nuances is our most powerful defense to fight the spread of misinformation, now and long into the future.

-30-

How providing solutions through journalism empowers our audience

By NADIA CAROLINA HERNANDEZ

It can be overwhelming checking the news some days. Headlines about an emerging war, endless political debate and situations beyond our immediate control make us feel more hopeless than empowered about information.

This isn’t a new phenomenon, a report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism revealed people are avoiding the news.

But the news doesn’t have to be like this.

Solutions Journalism offers a framework for journalists to focus on responses to issues rather than the issues themselves, according to the Solutions Journalism Network.

Jackie Spinner, former war correspondent of The Washington Post, felt she was doing solutions journalism throughout her career.

“I am glad we now have the language and the framework, you know, to make it better and to really, really embrace it,” she said. “But for me, it’s important for our audiences, not just to hear about the problems, but also to think about ways people are trying to resolve them.”

From reporting on the ground in Iraq to advising the Columbia College Chicago Chronicle, Spinner views solutions as a way to empower a community.

“We write about successes in our community,” she said. “Many of our communities of color in Chicago are rightfully angered by the fact that the news media only shows up when there’s a crime or there’s something horrible that happened.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean journalists have to view the world with a rose-colored lens. We know that people and systems need to be held accountable.

And what if there are conflicting viewpoints about what is the “right” solution? Is it always black and white?

Spinner says solutions frameworks don’t ignore the basics of reporting but encourage it.

“We have a responsibility to remind people that our agenda is the truth, our primary responsibility is to check every claim and to uncover,” she said. “People are not always going to like the answer to that.”

Amid a part-time faculty strike at Columbia College Chicago, the Chronicle isn’t only serving the needs of students.

“We keep having to remind people that our audience, as a student-run newspaper, is not just students, it’s also faculty, its administrators, its parents, its alumni, it’s the residents who live around our campus,” Spinner said.

Their diverse audiences are reminiscent of our school newspaper, The DePaulia. We’re thinking of DePaul, Lincoln Park and Chicago concurrently.

But there will always be objections to the solutions. Issues can quickly become politicized and take partisan sides. Presenting a solution doesn’t mean journalists are taking a stance.

“What benefit does it do for people to say, ‘look at everything that’s wrong,’ and not say, but ‘here’s something that’s right.’ I don’t think there’s a fundamental conflict between those two things,” Spinner said.

While the clock is ticking and my time as a student ends, I’m reflecting on how I’ll frame my stories to the public and the impact they have. I hope my stories don’t create a sense of anxiety for the audience but can give the necessary tools for them to feel informed.

“We’re supposed to give people information that they can make decisions that better impact their lives,” Spinner said.

That’s the purpose of journalism after all.

###

“Fact check, fact check, fact check”: Susan LaSalla on trust in the media and getting it right.

By Hailey Bosek

Media distrust is at an all-time high. A new Gallup poll reveals that Americans’ trust in the media is nearing a record-breaking low. Only 7% of Americans report having “a great deal” of trust and confidence in the media, while 27% report having “a fair amount.” Journalists face a long and treacherous road to regain that trust, and the arguments on how to do so are abundant.

Retired NBC producer Susan LaSalla believes it all comes back to one thing: getting the facts right.

The Raleigh, North Carolina native knew from a young age that she wanted to see the world. After nine years answering phones and doing other newsroom jobs, LaSalla achieved her goal. She became the third woman at the network to become a producer. Her career is best explained by where she hasn’t been. Her career took her to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the Middle East during the Gulf War, Russia, and Cuba. She also worked for NBC in Chicago and Miami, among other places. In 2009, she retired after a 43-year career at NBC. Her last 16 years were spent as the senior producer in Washington for The Today Show, earning her two Emmys.

LaSalla, like many, is disappointed in the state of journalism. The age of the internet and political discord have shifted the values that LaSalla feels journalists once heralded.

“I think it’s sort of come to the forefront with all the Trump stuff because of his outrageousness. You get back to FOX News, where FOX will 100% support anything Donald Trump says. But MSNBC will say he’s insane. He’s a liar. He’s a misogynist. And so that’s their blatant point of view,” said LaSalla. “I think most of this is because of social media. Journalism changed with the Internet because there were too many opinions out there.”

Despite the excess of opinions, LaSalla stands strong in her journalistic principles: Get your facts right and leave your opinion out of it.

“You have to have your facts. It’s all about facts,” said LaSalla. “A story you want and the story you come away with can be two different things.”

This is what LaSalla carried with her throughout her entire career. She navigated the political opinions of Washington with grace. Her parents came from different political parties, which might have armed LaSalla with the objectivity she feels is needed in journalism. Her track record of getting it right every time is credited to one process that she stressed always goes back to.

“Fact check, fact check, fact check,” said LaSalla.

LaSalla is concerned that journalism now cares more about sharing opinions than sharing the facts. The Pew Research Center found that Americans have trouble identifying the difference between factual and opinion statements in the news. LaSalla feels that journalists have no place in the world of opinions and that the principles of journalism are straightforward.

“It just seems so simplistic to me that you, of course, have a point of view. But as a journalist, nobody cares about your point of view; you’re there to do a job and to get answers,” said LaSalla. “Why do I have to have my beliefs as a journalist? Why does it matter what my beliefs are?”

LaSalla traveled the world and brought breaking news to the people who needed it most. She paved the way for women to have a place in journalism and did so with strict adherence to her ethics.

“We had the best of it because we loved what we did. We were terrified of getting it wrong, and we built careers on that,” said LaSalla.

LaSalla is settled down back home in her home state of North Carolina. She is happily retired and says she doesn’t envy emerging journalists in this climate.

“But you’re in an uphill battle with the rest of the world thinking of what you do for your profession sucks. There’s no trust in journalism,” said LaSalla. “You’ve got to prove them wrong.”

-30-

Parenting and pink Christmas trees: Heidi Stevens’ unique lens on life

by Samantha Moilanen

When Heidi Stevens began her column-writing career at the Chicago Tribune, one of the first personal essays she wrote delved into the experience of her first Christmas after divorce in 2012.

Titled “Dreaming of a pink Christmas,” the column recounts a conversation with her daughter about who would put up the Christmas tree in her father’s absence. Stevens responded by suggesting they purchase a new tree.

To her surprise, her daughter requested a pink Christmas tree that year.

For Stevens, this moment served as an epiphany making her realize that her children do not have to live her childhood experiences, but should have the freedom to shape their own. Going forward, Stevens vowed to create new memories with her children instead of attempting to recreate old ones.

This essay was one of the first in Stevens’ nationally syndicated column called “Balancing Act.” Stevens said the column’s name was inspired by her struggle to balance her life in the midst of a divorce.

“I had been recently divorced, I had two young kids, they were two and six at the time and I was literally trying to balance it all, which felt like an act because I was acting,” Stevens said.

While the column initially began as a personal exploration of work-life balance inspired by Stevens’ experiences as a recently divorced mother, it quickly evolved to cover a broad range of topics including: politics, relationships, race, gender and culture, all while maintaining a focus on parenting and family.

Stevens said the idea “that your life is not going the way you expected it to go at whatever chapter you’re in,” resonated with readers who can relate to the unexpected challenges life often brings.

Stevens said column writing is about connecting with readers through personal subjects while simultaneously addressing larger societal concepts.

One of Stevens’ more recent columns was on her mixed feelings about her daughter turning 18. Growing up, everyone reminds you that time flies and to cherish each moment, which Stevens says is wonderful but impossible advice. She said no one prepared her for the moment her daughter would reach adulthood, but instead of dwelling on the past, she wrote about raising her daughter with the words, “be careful with me,” always in mind because while time flies, a parent’s impact on their children lasts forever.

Stevens explains her approach saying, “My feeling is we live in a time where the news and headlines are swirling around us so fast on so many platforms that if I can reach up into the swirl, and grab one thing, and just … talk about it for a few minutes with readers. That’s what I want the column to do.”

However, Stevens admits balancing personal journalism is a delicate art. While this type of journalism allows for greater emotional resonance, Stevens acknowledges the need for balance.

“Some of the best writing is the most personal,” Stevens said. “But you have to do it sparingly, because otherwise you’re just sort of writing a diary and then opening it up for people to read.”

Stevens hopes her column helps readers navigate the complexities of their own lives by sharing thoughtful accounts of her lived experiences.

As Stevens puts it, “If you can make people feel less alone, that’s your point.”

With her storytelling abilities and journalistic expertise, Stevens not only informs but also forges an emotional connection with her readers, addressing topics that touch the lives of her audience through a combination of reporting and personal narrative.

Just as the pink Christmas tree marked Stevens’ departure from tradition, her column breaks away from the norm, delving into topics often left unexplored by the mainstream media with the hope of helping others find solace in shared experiences.

-30-