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-

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?

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?

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-

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.

By: Hailey Bosek

The largest newspaper chain in the U.S with over 200 publications under the company’s name, Gannett, recently posted journalism’s hottest new job position. The esteemed role is titled “Taylor Swift Reporter” and “Beyonce Reporter.”

“Seeing both the facts and the fury, the Taylor Swift reporter will identify why the pop star’s influence only expands, what her fanbase stands for in pop culture, and the effect she has across the music and business worlds,” the company wrote in its job description. Similarly, the newspaper is looking for someone to do the same for Beyonce.

That isn’t the only thing that Gannett has been up to as of late. Gannett has faced scrutiny due to its mass layoffs in recent years. According to NPR, Gannett’s staff of 25,000 has dwindled down to just over 11,000 since 2019. Mass layoffs came in waves, with the most recent one laying off 6% of its U.S. media division in December 2022.

Gannett Media president Maribel Perez Wadsworth told staff in an email that the company would make “necessary but painful reductions to staffing” and eliminate certain open positions. These supposedly “necessary” layoffs are taking people with decades of experience in their career away from their expertise while creating pockets of news deserts around the country. Susan DeCarava, president of the NewsGuild, has been vocal about Gannett’s control over the industry.

“Gannett CEO Mike Reed didn’t have a word to say to the scores of journalists whose livelihoods he’s destroyed, nor to the communities who have lost their primary news source thanks to his mismanagement,” DeCarava said in a statement.

So why Taylor Swift? Why Beyonce? Kristin Roberts, Gannett’s chief content officer told the Wall Street Journal that the revenue is what will save local journalism.

It is not. To advertise this position is laughing at the faces of the local journalists’ jobs that were slashed in the name of profits. These papers are left to a handful of staff that are stretched thin or are shut down entirely. The future of journalism looks bleak when the local city hall meetings will go uncovered, but what restaurant Taylor Swift recently visited has its own 500-word breaking story for USA Today. Gannett laid off about 600 reporters last year and has done nothing to salvage local papers. While their relevance is fading, their mission is more important than ever. The local news is falling through the cracks because it doesn’t make as much money or gain as many readers as documenting what new glittered corset Beyonce wore at the third leg of her tour. Does this make the local town hall sessions any less important?

I love Taylor Swift. I remember where I was when I saw the job listing on Twitter and immediately thought about how I could cover this beat. Analyzing cultural phenomenon’s and covering them is important. I believe that pop culture news can be fun to cover, create and read. However, to dedicate an entire reporter for both Beyonce and Swift as if the company doesn’t regularly lay off journalists with decades of experience is a slap in the face of why journalism matters in the first place. We need to continue as a community to invest in the local publications. We need to go back to our roots and connect with the people we cover. And most importantly, we need to call out Media Conglomerates at any opportunity we can.

-30-

BY NADIA CAROLINA HERNANDEZ

When USA Today announced it was seeking a reporter to cover the ubiquitous Taylor Swift, I couldn’t be more excited. I’m a huge fan and would love to see how her impact affects our culture and economy.

As much as Swift and other celebrities like Beyoncé gained traction over the summer with their tours, USA Today’s parent company Gannet was questioned about where they’re putting their reporters.

We’re at a critical moment in journalism when local newsrooms are disappearing across the nation, according to PEN America in 2020.

Local news retains the pulse of a community by covering the courts, mayor and meetings that directly impact everyday people . Beyond the investigations, seeing culture represented in the news can spark pride among neighbors.

There are greater purposes to local news beyond what we can anticipate. If not to keep people up-to-date, local news documents the history of a community. We can easily trace the development of individual families through archives of newspapers and digital archives for years to come.

If not focusing on the need-to-know news, these positions are the news industry’s adjustments to the digital age by focusing on social trends.

We won’t know until we see what they deliver. Beats covering entertainment and people in power still include strong journalism ethics and practices. Balanced journalism involves judgment and skill. It’s not enough to update social media every hour with whereabouts and rumors.

We also know from journalistic ethics that being a fan or a hater of any celebrity presents serious conflicts of interest when reporting on them. These positions should follow the same guidelines that are expected of presidential reporters .

Sun-Times columnist Rummana Hussain reflected on how the new celebrity-focused positions are motivated by profit. The news industry is constantly trying to meet people, especially Gen Z, where they are with attention-grabbing headlines about the latest trend.

The meeting place is on social media. We’re constantly being told that people are getting their news through X, Instagram and TikTok. Swift and Beyoncé also reign supreme on these platforms, where fans can quickly spread information about updates about their tours and upcoming projects.

Local news can thrive in the age of digital media. Who knows better than community reporters to share the best local businesses, quick city hall updates and weather forecasts? As I enter the industry soon, I know that delivering news digitally is a valuable skill. Journalists are more than capable of keeping local news alive.

Gannett  received over 1,000 applications for the celebrity beats. There are not as many rushing to cover a small town’s court system, but we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the significance of local news in the digital age. I’m sure someone out there will live their ‘wildest dreams’ by reporting on two of the most influential artists of the generation.

###

BY NADIA CAROLINA HERNANDEZ

When USA Today announced it was seeking a reporter to cover the ubiquitous  Taylor Swift, I couldn’t be more excited. I’m a huge fan and would love to see how her impact affects our culture and economy.

As much as Swift and other celebrities like Beyoncé gained traction over the summer with their tours, USA Today’s parent company Gannet was questioned about where they’re putting their reporters.

We’re at a critical moment in journalism when local newsrooms are disappearing across the nation, according to PEN America in 2020.

Local news retains the pulse of a community by covering the courts, mayor and meetings that directly impact everyday people . Beyond the investigations, seeing culture represented in the news can spark pride among neighbors.

There are greater purposes to local news beyond what we can anticipate. If not to keep people up-to-date, local news documents the history of a community. We can easily trace the development of individual families through archives of newspapers and digital archives for years to come.

If not focusing on the need-to-know news, these positions are the news industry’s adjustments to the digital age by focusing on social trends.

We won’t know until we see what they deliver. Beats covering entertainment and people in power still include strong journalism ethics and practices. Balanced journalism involves judgment and skill. It’s not enough to update social media every hour with whereabouts and rumors.

We also know from journalistic ethics that being a fan or a hater of any celebrity presents serious conflicts of interest when reporting on them. These positions should follow the same guidelines that are expected of presidential reporters .

Sun-Times columnist Rummana Hussain reflected on how the new celebrity-focused positions are motivated by profit. The news industry is constantly trying to meet people, especially Gen Z, where they are with attention-grabbing headlines about the latest trend.

The meeting place is on social media. We’re constantly being told that people are getting their news through X, Instagram and TikTok. Swift and Beyoncé also reign supreme on these platforms, where fans can quickly spread information about updates about their tours and upcoming projects.

Local news can thrive in the age of digital media. Who knows better than community reporters to share the best local businesses, quick city hall updates and weather forecasts? As I enter the industry soon, I know that delivering news digitally is a valuable skill. Journalists are more than capable of keeping local news alive.

Gannett  received over 1,000 applications for the celebrity beats. There are not as many rushing to cover a small town’s court system, but we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the significance of local news in the digital age. I’m sure someone out there will live their ‘wildest dreams’ by reporting on two of the most influential artists of the generation.

###

By Jackie Cardenas

As journalists, we are frequently told to remain objective. To draw a thick line between your opinions and the cold facts. To never let your own desires seep into the story you’re telling. And if you have strong beliefs to share, you can head your merry way to the opinions section of the paper.

It’s a thin rope I’ve walked as a journalist and the more I develop my own ethical compass, the more I believe objectivity bars us from igniting systemic change that would truly benefit us all.

The knowledge that journalists acquire from rigorous reporting places us in a unique position to not only understand the complexity of societal issues, but to pose viable solutions that dare to reimagine the world as it stands with the interest of people at heart.

When we take a stance, we can propose solutions that put asylum-seekers on the path to citizenship instead of them sleeping on police station floors. We can propose solutions that restore a woman’s right to be free, to have autonomy over her own body. We can propose solutions that trek us closer to ending the hyper policing of Black and Brown bodies, a construct that is deeply rooted in slavery.

It doesn’t mean that every story we write will lead to monumental change, but we should be uplifting the voices of those who are on the front lines fighting for these causes, in hopes that we can all edge closer to a liberated world.

Just as we would consider cancer solutions from a doctor with years of expertise in the field, why shouldn’t we consider the solutions a journalist suggests who has covered the abuse of workers’ rights? The power of the press is invaluable and should be used to propel reform.

Moreover, objectivity is the distance from a story only afforded to White journalists.

As Washington Post reporters Brie Thompson-Bristol and Kathy Roberts Forde put it, “The White press in America has a history of playing fast and loose with its ethics and disguising racism behind the veil of objectivity.”

When George Floyd was brutally killed in 2020, many journalists of color could not distance themselves from the story because it was far too personal, because it is our communities who are too frequently brutalized. We needed to take a stance.

As anti-apartheid and human rights activist Desmond Tutu once said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

The Black Lives Matter Movement grew, leading Black reporters to speak out against traditional journalistic standards because they felt it restrained who could report on the protests and whose views were truly considered “neutral.”

In newsrooms that remain 76% White, 8% Hispanic, 6% Black and only 3% Asian according to Pew Research Center, people questioned, for whom were these journalistic standards originally intended to serve?

Everybody has a bias but if we acknowledge them and we are transparent with our readers about them, it doesn’t have to diminish our fairness. I argue it makes us even more credible when we own up to where we stand.

There are harmful sides to issues and if we don’t let the public clearly know that, then we lose touch of our moral responsibility.

It doesn’t mean we let go of the practice of telling all sides to a story, it means we are taking the knowledge we acquire and proposing solutions.

-30-

by Samantha Moilanen

Growing up, my exposure to television and electronics was limited. Like most parents, mine feared my sister and I would grow up reliant on technology for our entertainment. Nevertheless, whenever I had the opportunity, I would “discreetly” watch my parents’ TV shows, which typically included programs such as Cold Case, Criminal Minds and Law and Order.

My fascination with crime shows from a young age sparked my interest in investigative journalism. As I began my journalistic career, I found myself drawn to reporting on crimes or any societal injustices.

But one question continually haunts me: How do we fulfill our duty to report the truth while minimizing harm to victims, particularly in cases of traumatic events like mass shootings?

Since Columbine, there have been 386 school shootings in the U.S., according to data from the Washington Post updated in June.

The horrifying reality of school shootings hit close to home in November 2021 with the Oxford High School shooting in Michigan and, again, in February when Michigan State University became a target for an active shooter.

As a reporter, when covering crimes like these we quickly rush to the scene, not thinking about our safety or well-being, but only that we have to break the news of this horrific tragedy because the public deserves to know what is happening. It’s our job after all.

Yet, as journalists we also have to be mindful of how we cover these events. Behind the headlines and troubling statistics are people who have experienced unimaginable pain and suffering. We can’t forget why we do what we do. Yes, we have to break the news. But taking an extra minute to truly analyze what we’re reporting before we hit send can make a drastic difference.

Ashley Yuckenberg, an assistant professor at George Mason University wrote her dissertation on the ethical quandaries of crisis coverage as a journalist. Her research focused specifically on school shootings and analyzed how missteps in local coverage distorted the national conversation about these events.

In the well-known 1999 Columbine shooting, reporters interviewed traumatized students immediately after surviving arguably the worst experience of their lives.

Was this ethical? Of course, journalists should always interview the people directly impacted, but should they have waited?

Yuckenberg found false rumors were then reported as fact in an effort to quickly break the news which resulted in forming the stereotype of the disaffected, gun-obsessed American school shooter that lives on in our imagination today. Yuckenberg uncovered another alarming aspect that was added to the narrative shaped by the media: the suggestion that goth culture played a motivating role in school shootings.

In 2017, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a set of guidelines for journalists to follow when reporting on mass shootings. Some general principles included avoiding angles or language that could potentially glamorize the perpetrator’s actions, thus influencing copycat behavior, avoiding stories that could retraumatize survivors, and avoiding language that could stigmatize people living with mental illness.

Yuckenberg used her research to come up with five ethical issues for journalists to consider when covering mass shootings. First, be mindful of relying on unverified information from witnesses who still may be in shock because it can result in misinformation. Second, avoid including details that may sensationalize the crime and retraumatize victims. Only include information that benefits society as a whole. Third, be mindful of how your coverage could influence copycat crimes. Fourth, always offer information from both sides and contextualize all statements regarding issues like mental health. Finally, be mindful of missing information as a crisis is unfolding. Sharing the full story is important but also be aware of how the information is affecting survivors.

I never want to be the journalist who chases the story to the point that they forget why they are reporting it in the first place. I think it’s easy to get caught up in the fast-pace of the 24-hour news cycle and making a deadline can sometimes seem like the top priority. But I also want to challenge myself to practice mindfulness when reporting on crimes of all nature, and to remember that the story isn’t just a story, but these are people too.