By: Alexandra Murphy

As a journalist, you will often encounter stories where you become overly attached to a source in some way, shape, or form. While it is important to be an empathetic journalist, it is also drilled into fellow reporters, including myself, that you must always maintain a certain level of objectivity. So, how close is too close for comfort when having a relationship with a source and where do we draw the line?

Journalists can spend weeks, months, and in some cases even years getting to know their sources carefully and personally. Learning personal information about and source’s family life, finding out about a traumatic incident the source has had, you name it. When growing this close to knowing an individual’s personal life, it can be difficult to withhold from exchanging a personal back and forth to empathize with the person being interviewed.

Some journalists may even find themselves in the difficult position of wanting to relate to the source so that the conversation does not feel awkward or one sided. This is why it is imperative as a journalist to refer back to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and to always be upfront with your newsroom and your reader when disclosing source relationships.

My belief is that to remain objective there is an invisible line that should be drawn when reaching out for the initial interview, during the interview, and even after the story is published if the piece requires a follow up with the source. A large part of drawing this line is being completely transparent with the public about your relationship to a source. Then, later down the line if you are able to get the scoop on a source, there is no question of your intentions on how you obtained the information.

The SPJ Code of Ethics states, “a journalist’s job is to seek the truth and report it.”

One example of a reporter who did not follow this important guideline was Nina Totenburg, a well-known, reputable correspondent for NPR, who had a controversial friendship with source Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Supreme Court reporter released a book in 2022 titled, “Dinners with Ruth”, which sparked a debate about conflict of interest with source relationships and if this would give off the impression that journalists are no longer loyal to the public.

In my opinion, I believe that Totenburg being friendly and having a large amount of respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not the issue at hand because as a journalist, it is important to build relationships with your sources.  However, I think she crossed the fine line between building a relationship and having a close friendship where this line became blurred and the implications impacted her reputation as an ethical journalist. After all, in her book she stated that she had known about Ruth Bader Ginsburg falling ill prior to her death on Sept. 18, 2020.

This is an ethical issue I struggle with to this day because as an empathetic individual, it becomes challenging to maintain objectivity and professionalism when reporting on an emotional topic. Going into the journalism profession, I accepted this challenge with a full understanding of how difficult it was going to be.

One of the most touching stories I have ever had the opportunity to report on was covering the busing of migrants from Texas to Chicago. I couldn’t help but to tear up in the moments talking with those directly affected because, how could I just sit there, and stare blank faced at a situation that is so horrifying and has had an impact on so many  people.

Sometimes, it can become easy to forget that journalists are human too and are allowed to feel emotions for their sources. Having difficult emotions, being empathetic, or simply checking in with a source is not wrong.  Withholding information from the public when wanting to protect a source is when having too close a relationship with a source becomes unethical.

-30-

By Alyssa Gomez

Through the last four years of pursuing a degree in journalism, I have been taught many things, the most prominent being: tell both sides of the story. Though this theory may seem like a simple instruction it is something young journalists like me have to work at.

I remember being in a heated crowd in downtown Chicago when abortion rights were being taken away from women in America. It was the first story I felt as if I was covering something important; a hard-hitting breaking news story. As excited as I was, I can now look back and recognize my shortcomings that day. Because when you are face to face with the opposing side, chanting rude, nasty, and even threatening things, it is difficult to approach them with confidence and ask for their point of view…and I didn’t.

I was in that situation not long ago, and despite being thrilled to cover a hard-hitting and important story, I failed in the aspect of covering both sides. Like the world around us changing, I’m still changing too and learning every day. I may have been afraid then, but if I was thrown into that situation today, I firmly believe that I have the confidence and knowledge to confront the opposing side and get their statement, without fail. In this instance, both sides journalism was not only helpful, but absolutely necessary.

Recently in my classes the question has been debated: in what instance do we abandon both sides journalism in pursuit for the truth? More than that, are we required to tell all and every side of an issue, story etc. even if they don’t contribute to exposing the truth?

Pursuing both sides journalism becomes increasingly more difficult in today’s political climate. To remain fair when both sides are explaining their viewpoint is one thing, but to give a platform to a political party when they promote falsehoods that have been repeatedly disproven is another. When we allow our platform to be utilized to spread false information, we lose credibility and contribute to the distrust that the public has in the media. It has been debated that abandoning this practice can lead to imbalance in political reporting, leaning one way or another politically.

The idea of telling both sides of the story is simple in practice, but not when a journalist’s credibility is on the line. Their credibility is their livelihood, it is what their entire career is based upon. It is not as simple as giving one side a platform over another. Like detectives, we must provide evidence and proof to disprove falsehoods and misinformation. This requires digging and searching for facts, calling people for confirmation, and linking to your sources. It is not easy and is often extremely time consuming. But in the pursuit for honest and truthful journalism, it is more important to report the truth than it is to uphold both sides. We shouldn’t be pressured into providing a platform for lies to spread, even if that means sacrificing the “both sides’ ideal.

There is an old saying my parents have often used in our household: “There’s three sides to every story. Your version, my version, and the truth.” I will always be in search of the truth.

In conclusion, nothing these days is black and white. Journalism is facing challenges like never before. We are challenged to critically think when it is appropriate to use both sides journalism, when to abandon it, and most importantly; what will serve the public in the best way possible.

Written By Grace Vaughn

As entertaining as it can be to witness a billionaire make a bad investment, I have watched in fear for the last several months as Elon Musk’s grand plans for Twitter unfolded. His takeover has involved implementing new algorithms, embracing teetering policy practices and even restoring suspended accounts. Though, my growing concern over the subject lies in the fact that the platform has become a news source in many people’s lives.

I recall a moment in my business course last year when the professor stopped mid-lecture to ask the class where they got their news. Hands rose, each student with a similar response, “I check what’s trending on Twitter” or “My Twitter timeline”.

This, of course, is a well-known reality for my generation. Seventy four percent of Gen Z consume their daily news from social media platforms in this nation, according to the American Press Institute.

The problem that arises under Musk’s leadership is whether or not the social media app can still be a trusted place to find out what’s happening in the world. Since his purchase, Twitter has seen an increase not only in misinformation but also the amount of attention being given to these accounts. An investigation by Science Feedback concluded that 490 “superspreader” accounts gained a 44% increase in interactions since his acquisition of the social network company.

Combating the spread of false information no longer appears to be a priority at the company. Users are left to decipher the truth on their own as misleading content becomes more and more difficult to detect.

The site also established a certain level of trust among users by implementing the blue check mark. Dishing it out to politicians, journalists and other public figures, the small tick symbol appearing next to a person’s handle grew to represent credibility, but that is no longer the case.

Users of any kind can now apply and purchase verification under Musk’s new “Twitter Blue” program. Requirements to be considered are much simpler than before, including being an active account and displaying a profile photo. It is worth considering the fact that users may very well continue to correlate this familiar sign with trustworthiness and authenticity.

This leads us to the question of journalists’ role in this issue. Twitter is a pivotal resource for reporters and outlets allowing them to promote work, break stories and connect with sources. Yet, Musk’s Twitter doesn’t seem interested in protecting them or maintaining a safe space for the news.

It may be tempting for journalists to switch to an alternative app in the near future, like Mastodon, as their verifications slip away and accounts get suspended. However, the hard truth is that many people continue to turn to Twitter for information.

If this is the case, I believe we need journalists engaged on the platform. We need them pushing out reliable information. We need them fact-checking others’ content for the sake of users seeking out the truth. It feels like our responsibility to fight against the messiness of the platform for a little while longer.

###

By Stephania Rodriguez

As I approach the end of my senior year as a journalism major, I look back at all the interviews I’ve done, the people I’ve met, the photographs I’ve taken, the issues I’ve covered, and the places I’ve traveled to tell a good story. There was sacrifice, as with any dream we pursue, and moments when I didn’t always feel comfortable, but I always made sure to reward myself when all the hard work was done.

At the end of every week, I have to admit that I feel physically and mentally tired, but I’ve been finding ways to step away from my job and make sure I take care of my body and I can be equipped to take on whatever assignment is next.

When I first began seriously pursuing journalism, it never crossed my mind to consider the effects that the job could have on my mental health. If I was choosing to pursue the career I loved, then certainly my mental health would be the last thing I’d need to worry about.

Though I myself do not battle with mental health issues, it’s a struggle that I’ve gotten to know firsthand. Someone that I love was diagnosed with a severe mental health disorder that makes it hard for them to do many of life’s daily tasks. Having this person in my life has given me the awareness and mindfulness that I have now about mental health, and I’ve often applied it to how I show up as a journalist.

Many journalists do in fact have mental health issues.  A research article found that the prevalence of PTSD among journalists is higher than that among the general population.

There are topics reporters cover that may inevitably cause stress and mental health strain not only for the sources they are speaking to, but on themselves as well. Some reporters cover stories that involve trauma, such as natural disasters, violence, abuse, and harassment, which can cause journalists to experienceanxiety, depression, sleep and eating disorders, burnout, trauma, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The Media Diversity Institute cited a research article that studied journalists who quit the profession.  “The professions increased demands and the industry’s digitalization played a large role in their decision to quit. According to the research’s conclusions, ‘the lack of institutional support on work-life balance and mental health paired with the institutional demands to be “all in” and always on, and the consequential lack of professional–personal life balance, led journalists to have a sense of disconnection from both their personal and professional lives.’”

There have been more initiatives in recent years that show that newsrooms are considering their reporters’ mental health. Reuters created an online resource centerfor journalists that’s full of access to information and guidance on topics like stress, burnout, trauma, and mental illness. They cite research from the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma that shows that newsroom managers play “a crucial role in promoting a healthy, resilient workplace, and that effective newsroom leadership plays a protective role for journalists exposed to stress and trauma.”

When it comes to taking care of their mental health, I believe there are some questions journalists can ask themselves about the newsroom they are working in or want to work in:

• How does this newsroom support their reporters when it comes to their mental health?
• What kinds of resources do they provide for addressing mental health issues?
• Is there someone within your newsroom that you can talk to about mental health and discuss how to find solutions and balance?

It’s important for journalists who are struggling to speak up and find the help they need, but newsrooms certainly play an equally important role in navigating this issue.

-30-

By Jacob Costello

I first saw Andrew Callaghan on the YouTube channel “All Gas No Breaks.” I was instantly intrigued by his lanky frame, wild mop of red hair, and signature ill-fitting brown suit. His early work complimented his goofy appearance. Callaghan went to beach parties, music festivals, porn conventions, NASCAR races, pretty much any place where people would be drinking and/or saying outlandish things. While I got a lot of entertainment from these zany gatherings and the characters he would find, what I really began to enjoy was his coverage of protests, demonstrations, and political events.

After a legal dispute over the ownership of “All Gas No Breaks,” Callaghan would create a new channel called “Channel Five.” I feel this marked a step into more journalistic work. He would still interview Phish fans huffing nitrous gas in the parking lot of the concert, but he also began to go to political rallies and other more serious events. Callaghan covered the War in Ukraine, the Derek Chauvin trial verdict, and many other stories that were a far cry from his humble roots of interviewing drunk college students on Bourbon Street. What I loved about his coverage is how he would interview anybody who was willing to talk to him. At every one of these locations, he would interview “normal” people, or at least as normal as you can get at a convention for people who like to dress up in fur suits.

Callaghan’s 2022 documentary “This Place Rules,” contains some of his best reporting. The documentary follows the young journalist travelling across America in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election. After the election, he begins to cover the “Stop the Steal” protests and interviews inflammatory figures like Alex Jones. Callaghan never fails to bring a human element to these stories, my favorite of which is when he spends time with a family who has completely bought into the Q Anon conspiracy. His interviews with the young children are the most impactful, who have begun to parrot the conspiracies that their parents fed to them.

Callaghan explained his journalistic style of “radical empathy” to Alina Selyukh in an interview on NPR.

“The goal of the film was to really talk to people without a pre-loaded agenda, not trying to slam dunk or find the dumbest person there and make them feel small or catch them in a lie or a contradiction. But to actually try to apply some empathy and really talk to some of these folks and figure out why it is that they feel this way,” said Callaghan.

Callaghan’s journalism reminds me a lot of Hunter S. Thompson and his gonzo journalism. They both traverse America finding unique stories that haven’t been told yet. Four months ago, I would have said Callaghan and Thompson were two of my favorite journalists. However, information came to light in January that showed a side of Callaghan that most did not know about.

Days after the release of his documentary on HBO, multiple women came forward on social media claiming Callaghan had pressured them into sex while drinking. He responded two weeks later, saying he never assaulted anyone but he apologized for his pushy behavior. He also said he knows these incidents occurred under the influence and would be committing to the 12 Step Program. That was the last the internet saw of Andrew Callaghan.

Callaghan’s talent as an interviewer and a journalist is undeniable, but his reprehensible behavior will always taint my view of him. I am skeptical if he will return to journalism, but if he does will people forgive him? Will I forgive him? I wish I had the answer.

-30-

by Juliana Pelaez

From movies to the classroom setting, you are told that if you want to be seen first, before other news outlets, you must be first on the scene. You want to be the one reporting on the story before anyone else. But in wanting to be first, reporters must be careful to separate fact from fiction.

Big time news outlets like CNBC, Bloomberg, The Daily, and NBC were tricked into believing that two men heading out of Twitter headquarters, in October of 2022, were employees. Aftera large number of officials and employees were laid off from their positions it was assumed that they were a part of this group. In fact those two individuals were pranksters posing as Twitter employees with devised names.

CNBC’s reporter, Deirdre Bosa, was the first to interview them, asking how they were dealing with the aftermath of their termination. “They are visibly shaken,” Bosa stated. “Daniel tells us he owns a Tesla and doesn’t know how he’s going to make payments.”

ABC7 Bay Area reporter Suzanne Phan tweeted out the story stating that one of the men said he was terminated after a zoom meeting.

Other reporters on the scene and online were hounding the two individuals for a story. In the absence of contacting Twitter management to understand what happened and questioning if these men were who they really said they were, the story is mere words. It then had become something that these reporters were wanting, not something they tried to find. While it does make sense that reporters are always on a deadline and editors want a story, the facts must come first. And in this instance, the facts came second.

Another report related to the Twitter aftermath comes from what we wrote as one of the deadline writings in our final last quarter. A group of men boarded a school bus carrying Jewish grade-school children in West Rogers Park, yelled antisemitic slurs and gave the Hitler salute, according to officials with the Simon Wiesenthal Center (Chicago SunTimes).

The incident occured on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi pogrom that destroyed almost all synagogues across Germany in 1938. Several people were interviewed about the incident citing this anniversary and how it was harmful to the Jewish community. The story was reported by both the Chicago SunTimes and NBC Chicago—two news operations that people rely on for daily news—and turned out to be fabricated.

Personally, when reading through the story, I thought it was true. I remember I wrote it in a way to explain what was wrong in the situation. Attempting to add the minor details that weren’t added in the story beforehand. It wasn’t until near the end of our time that I discovered that the story wasn’t true and I couldn’t change the direction I already had.

The difference though in what I wrote to what reporters put out was that they shared this to the public without fact checking. They didn’t wait for the footage from the bus to tell the factual story.

Being in any news outlet, the public depends on you to have the news be factual and true. But, in some cases the truth falls wayside to the rush to puiblish.  What must be done to prevent this is to take the time on getting the facts and reporting the story that is available. Not what we want to have.

-30-

By Grace Golembiewksi 

 One of the first things I was taught in multiple journalism classes was the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics. The Code is a thorough and descriptive list explaining the four principles it believes journalists should abide by in the field. These are seeking truth and reporting it, minimizing harm, acting independently, and being accountable and transparent.

 In some of my film classes, I was taught to take pictures/film until you were told not to be there anymore and to always put my camera behind me so security guards would not take it from me. On the other hand, this would not fly in a journalistic piece. I truly believe that documentary and journalism overlap in several areas, which was one of the main reasons I pursued both for my studies.

 However, it made me think while journalists have these pillars to use as their moral guide, documentary filmmakers do not have a set guide of ethical standards within the industry. 

In a conversation with DePaul University film Professor Susanne Suffredin, she stated that “there are no hard and fast rules for the ethics around what you end up filming or making as a documentarian. It’s usually case by case, and it’s often up to the individual, which makes it more complicated because you’re asking the individual to bring a certain amount of integrity and ethical awareness, and behavior to what they’re doing. Because it’s not strictly defined, not everybody adheres to it in the same way.” 

 Like in journalism, documentarians hold a lot of power, specifically the power of a trustful audience, but with great power comes great responsibility. Sadly, an audience’s trust can be easily exploited. One example from the Center for Media and Social Impact is the film Plandemic (2020), which continued the spread of misinformation about Covid-19. I even remember when the docuseries Tiger King was released, sitting in film school questioning why this was labeled as a documentary when it was filmed more like a reality show, even going as far as to speculate a murder.  

While chatting with me, Prof. Suffredin stated that even though there may not be a set of guidelines documentarians must refer to, she found similarities between the journalistic Code of Ethics and ethics emphasized by many documentary filmmakers. Documentary filmmakers often seek truth, film it, and go even further to examine the meaning of truth. While they might not attribute each fact presented, filmmakers often tell the audience the point of view that the film focuses on. There is a strict yet unspoken rule that documentary filmmakers must never pay their subjects, with exceptions such as life rights, just as you never pay a source in journalism. Suffredin believes and hopes that documentarians seek to do no harm or, if they do, explain the reason behind this potential harm. 

 Suffredin stated, “you [the filmmaker] give the audience some guidelines to let them know what to expect. As long as you adhere to those guidelines, I think the audience both trusts you and trusts the film…And then ultimately, once the film is out, or whatever you’ve made is out, it gives the public, the audience, whatever venue that it’s being viewed in, the opportunity to come back with questions and say, ‘well, wait a minute, you said this, is this true?’ So, it does become a conversation.” 

The Center for Media and Social Impact suggests that journalists and film critics become part of this conversation, and I could not agree more! By using watchdog sites to actively report on documentary topics, increasing journalistic coverage of the documentary film industry, and film critics analyzing the documentary form, these methods can hold documentarians accountable for the information provided in their films. As the documentary film audience expands, the Center for Media and Social Impact believes it is the journalist’s and critics’ duty to hold documentary films accountable through discussion. 

 As a journalist and documentarian, myself, I find it essential to recognize the different ethical standards for journalism and documentary, written or unwritten, and ensure accountability within the documentary film community. 

-30-

By Emily Soto

I participated in a summer journalism bootcamp in 2021, hosted by a small, hyperlocal newsroom in the Chicago suburbs. The team of three journalists ─ yes, just three reporters ran the entire newsroom ─ taught us about the importance of preserving local news and the responsibility it has to the people in a community. They showed us how to use our reporting to reflect and support a neighborhood in a way that empowers its people to engage with each other. They stressed that local journalists were able to hold officials accountable, especially the ones who typically slide under the radar.

But isn’t local news dying? At least that’s what I heard in journalism school. A few professors even advised me to stay away from certain forms of media for fear of no path forward.

Are they right? The 2022 State of Local News report from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism said that since 2005, the U.S. is on track to lose a third of its newspapers by 2025. When the large chains which own much of the nation’s newspapers need to make cuts, the locals are the first to go.

The report added, “The loss of local journalism has been accompanied by the malignant spread of misinformation and disinformation, political polarization, eroding trust in media, and a yawning digital and economic divide among citizens…Even in their diminished state, newspapers still provide most of the news that feeds our democracy at the state and local level.”

This is just as I was told at the bootcamp. So, with such a big responsibility, how do we ensure a future for this news source?

Local news has the ability to do things the legacies and national networks can’t do and it’s time we realize this.

We’ve already seen it happening in Chicago when Block Club Chicago and Borderless Magazine partnered to publish a series of profiles called “After The Busses” which followed 10 of the Venezuelan migrants bussed to Chicago from Texas as they figure out life in the city.

We’ve seen it when publications like the Harvey World Herald are the only source of media coverage on their municipal elections, or city council meetings.

But what we are really seeing from these and many other local news sources are journalists who are fulfilling a duty that has been taken for granted. As the SPJ Code of Ethics puts it, they are “ensuring we remember that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.”

During the bootcamp, the publication’s Editor-in-Chief also shared with us one instance when he met a young journalist on the job for a legacy paper. When my instructor mentioned he works for a hyperlocal news organization, the young reporter responded saying, hopefully he might see this Editor-in-Chief in his major newsroom someday.

As long as we continue to have this mentality that local news is for the journalists who “didn’t make it,” those publications will continue to crumble, and journalists will keep failing to fulfill their duty.

It’s time to take the small newsrooms seriously.

####

by Lily Lowndes

I have always believed that journalism is a function of justice. As journalists, we are truth-tellers. We seek to bring injustices to light, whether those injustices come from a company, government body or an individual.

What I also believed was that the harmful actions of these companies, government bodies and individuals were indicative of their characters. I was at peace with any consequences they might face after reporters brought their stories to light. If they did something wrong, there were no excuses.

Of course, the reporting must be fair, but it should not cushion the harm that was done. Justice must be enacted through tough, no-nonsense coverage.

These were my beliefs until I read an article where I knew the subject facing no-nonsense coverage. Having a real connection to this person and reading the subsequent articles about their actions changed my outlook on how journalists report on private citizens.

As journalists, we must take extra care to ensure to be fair when covering a private citizen and their actions.

Last fall, Block Club Chicago and the Chicago Tribune both ran stories about a DePaul student distributing fliers to a homeless encampment announcing free housing at a nearby hotel. These fliers not only turned out to be false, but they were a publicity stunt for the student’s mayoral campaign.

If a reader did not read beyond the headline of the story, they might assume terrible things about this student, that they likely had malicious intent, they are against the unhoused, or they do not have empathy for others.

When Block Club and the Tribune shared their coverage on social media, the backlash this student received was severe. I am not condoning what they did, but I will never support online attacks.

Twitter users commented on the Block Club and Tribune posts writing that the student was a horrible person, calling for DePaul to expel the student and one user even wrote that they should be kicked out of Chicago.

At the time of the incident, the student was a freshman in a class I was mentoring. I was in class with this student, talked one-on-one with them and gave feedback on their assignments. The person that I grew to know was kind-hearted. They did not seem like they would act with malicious intent, nor did they seem like they should be kicked out of Chicago.

Instead of gunning for hard-hitting coverage, for the first time, I was yearning for the reporters to take a more compassionate lens. This student was a minor, only 17 years old. They were not malicious, naive maybe, but I thought that this coverage broke a golden rule of the Society of Professional Journalists: minimize harm.

After reading the articles, I was worried for the student’s well-being. I was angry at the reporters because I could tell what questions they asked and what questions they did not ask. At the end of the article, I had even more questions that were unaddressed in the text.

Even if someone read beyond the headline, they would not find a clear answer to why the student chose to distribute the fliers. Yes, it was a part of her mayoral campaign, but I found it shocking that the reporters did not ask how it would help her campaign or if she had an action plan for the unhoused.

A person is more than their actions. It is imperative that we know not only what a person did, but why they did it. We cannot treat private individuals like they are government bodies or major corporations. These are real people with a backstory and a life before the covered event that happened because there is a difference between enacting justice and reporting something that brings harm and needlessly ruins someone’s life.

-30-

by Patrick Sloan-Turner

As I’ve begun to apply for jobs in my final year of undergrad, I’ve found myself increasingly thinking about my own journalistic “brand.” I hate that word, but many journalists will say it’s a necessary part of the business. The idea of cultivating a journalistic persona has commanded my attention.

“How does the language in my writing read? Do I put too much of myself on my Twitter feed? Does the font choice on my resume accurately depict my vibe?”

Most of all, I’ve tried to keep my opinion to myself. For a journalist finishing up his degree, that means to Tweet carefully.

In all honesty, it hadn’t been that hard. Then, an issue came up in my college newsroom that was overwhelmingly difficult to not publicly share my thoughts on. It was tough because I was part of the story.

Last year, I started an initiative at DePaul for students to be offered a university-sponsored health insurance plan. Quickly, administrators asked me to join a task force to create a proposal to bring to the university’s board of trustees.

It was a big story that DePaul’s student newspaper, The DePaulia, obviously needed to cover. As a journalism major writing for student media, I of course disclosed my involvement to The DePaulia’s leadership, and told them there was little I’d be able to share with anyone covering the ongoing story.

A year later, I’m now a managing editor of the publication. The task force’s work ended after the board of trustees approved our plan, aiming to implement a student insurance plan by Fall 2023.

Then, things changed.

One of our reporters heard that the board changed its mind. I was disgusted to hear that the plan would now be delayed indefinitely. Immediately I felt an urge to use my platform at the paper to broadcast this issue to anyone who would listen.

I wanted to write a front-page op-ed, telling our readers that more than 90 percent of 4-year schools in the U.S. offer its students health insurance. I wanted to use the paper to call out the board of trustees for disallowing nearly 2000 students the option to receive health insurance.

But I couldn’t. Doing so would hurt The DePaulia’s credibility. It would likely hurt my own credibility as journalist. I kept quiet as the talented reporters working for our paper did the work and confirmed that the plan would indeed be delayed. It took a few days, but The DePaulia broke the news and Tweeted a link to the story on Twitter, all the while, I continued to keep my thoughts and anger at bay.

The New York Times doesn’t like its journalists to Tweet their opinions. Still, there’s countless journalists on the platform who have cultivated careers sharing opinions on whatever is in the ethos in between their unbiased work.

Twitter for journalists is still somewhat uncharted territory – at least in the academic world. We haven’t spent any lectures on how we should use Twitter. There’s no stylebook for journalism social media guidelines. For someone who would like to be a hard-news reporter, I always thought it best to keep my thoughts off it.

In my case, I decided to Tweet a thread sharing my perspective close to the situation, calling out university administration and sharing my disgust with how the university was treating its students. I’m not sure it was the smart move, but I told myself that maybe sometimes things are more important than my own personal “brand” or career. Attention to the issue was more important than brand.

Maybe that’s my brand.