By Jakob Emerson

Anderson Cooper lit the internet news scene ablaze in May 2017 when he set foot into territory rarely explored by television journalists before.

During an airing of the CNN show “Anderson Cooper 360°,” in which guest Kellyanne Conway defended President Trump’s move to fire former FBI Director James Comey, Cooper dared to roll his icy blues on camera, subsequently disrespecting his guest and demonstrating a clear demeanor of disagreement.

“It’s not something I consciously did and I want to be respectful to anybody I interview,” Cooper said on a live taping of Bravo’s “Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen.” “I absolutely regretted it.”

The interaction between CNN’s arguably most well-known anchor with Conway, counselor to the president, raises the question: Why do news media organizations invite guests that they undoubtedly know will issue flagrant falsehoods and deliberately lead the conversation away from the overarching goal of receiving accurate information from the White House?

“They’re in a jam,” said Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The New York Times. “They want people on television to talk for the president. They have a billion liberal commentators who want to come on and trash the president. How do you find people who say the president is right and who have credibility?”

The most recent example of this type of interview aired April 28 on Jake Tapper’s CNN show “State of the Union,” in which Conway left Tapper with no choice but to interrupt her lengthy monologues multiple times. Tapper discussed the president’s comment of “fine people on both sides” after a Neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, but Conway twisted her way out of the argument and left Tapper sputtering his critiques. She did so by continually shifting the focus of the discourse and shuffling the timeline of the president’s actions.

Ultimately, Tapper appears to lose the argument. Now this is not to assume that the host did not come prepared with piercing questions and a developed ability to hunt for precise answers, but Conway is a master at spinning an indefensible position into a public relations victory. This mastery leads us once again to the question: Why do cable news networks book guests like Conway, even if she is one of the few individuals left to speak on behalf of the president?

It’s a question even late-night talk show hosts, such as Stephen Colbert, have asked Tapper directly.

“Kellyanne Conway,” Colbert said. “Why have her on TV? She is a collection of deceptions with a blonde wig stapled on top.”

Tapper replied without a smile, “I think that sometimes it’s worth it to have people on so you can challenge the very notion of the facts that are being disregarded and the lies that are being told.”

Lourdes Duarte, a WGN-TV news anchor, stated similarly, “You have to give them a platform and the ability to talk about the issues or be able to question them because they’re an important part of the story,” she said. “You need to do your best to verify the information they’re giving you. You need to be able to go back and forth with them.”

However, some would argue that the sentiment of giving a platform to a factually reckless opponent only fuels a post-truth era of propaganda and the rise of “alternative facts,” an infamous phrase coined by Conway herself.

The central ethical tenet of fair journalism also happens to be the root of the problem. CNN, and other outlets such as MSNBC, invite guests like Conway, and even pay Trump spokespeople such as Corey Lewandowksi, because they are networks that adhere to balanced reporting. The problem is that the Conways of the world are keenly aware of this ethical dilemma.

Evidence of this was present in a May 2018 interview on Brian Stelter’s CNN show “Reliable Sources,” in which he grilled Conway about the then-ongoing Mueller investigation into Trump campaign contacts with Russia.

By the end of the contentious debate, in which Conway accused Stelter of trying to “get the president,” she said “Just say it. Because I know your viewers expect that now. Look at their comments all the time, ‘Don’t have Trump people on.’ They expect you to be reflexively, invectively anti-Trump, and that’s problematic.”

With this single retort, it became abundantly clear that Conway is very aware that CNN’s viewers do not understand why she is included in national broadcasts and that her presence places the network in direct opposition of their core audience.

Nevertheless, it is that good old ethics thing that CNN remains loyal to, demonstrating to their viewers that they may not approve of Conway’s tactics or what she represents, but they will always be an institution that stands for open dialogue and discussion from varied perspectives.

Of course, some will say that bringing on Conway is simply a shield that large “liberal” networks use to protect themselves from criticisms and accusations of bias toward one side of the aisle.

It’s just like Lourdes Duarte said: “It’s my job to lay out the facts and the information.” That job includes finding sources and interviewing guests that speak in a way that may run circles around the reporter. More importantly, it is being prepared enough to push back on creative language and prepared to fight hard for the answers that must be revealed.

-30-

By Ashley Collins

Procrastination is a barrier for many writers. There’s the story, the deadline, the headline and maybe a sub-headline, that can leave you stuck.

Imagine covering a story about a family who discovered that their great-grandfather is still living. Where do you go from there? You start writing, right?  Wrong. You interview, you do your research and you make contact with the family. Today is Monday. Your editor wants it in Wednesday at 12 P.M. to be in Thursday’s headline. You have two days to break a story. Then what?

So, you get started. Let’s start with the headline. You can’t figure it out, so you wait. Take a break, think about it. Mind you it’s 3 P.M. and you don’t touch your computer again until 6 P.M. You have some phone calls to make. So, you call the family. You set-up times to interview the next morning. Fast-forward, your interviews are complete. It’s Tuesday at 5 P.M. in the evening. What are you going to do?

You take your time. Why? Because your procrastinating, you pretend you have all the time in world, knowing you don’t but you do. In an article written in The Atlantic by Meghan McArdle she wrote, “Forced into a challenge we’re not prepared for, we often engage ‘self-handicapping’: deliberately doing things that set us up for failure.”

Journalists are said to be the worst procrastinators. Why? Because, well, there’s just so much going on. Your editor sends you three stories to cover, an assignment editor keeps calling and you have this long list of to-dos that you have to prioritize. So, how do journalists do it? They don’t do anything, they just write. You naturally write on deadline because you have to. Writing is a form of art and it’s your job.

Honestly, it’s fair to say that all journalists procrastinate. At this very moment while you’re reading this you’re thinking about that time you skated across thin ice to meet your deadline. It’s okay, you got it done, right?

McArdle said, “If you’ve spent most of your life cruising ahead on natural ability, doing what came easily and quickly, every word you write becomes a test of just how much ability you have, every article a referendum on how good a writer you are.” Meeting deadlines and writing is critical in a journalist’s career, you know when to get something done. Right.

You get distracted, it’s natural even amongst the best of them like Mike Royko and John Kass. They too procrastinate, right? But you know what sets them apart, they turn in that article Wednesday at 12 P.M. You put down that Iced Coffee with a shot of espresso and your story flows. You type effortlessly, answering the question of, “How this family discovered their great-grandfather and how they plan to move forward?” Your 800-word article is complete. Your headline reads, “Hey great-grandfather is that really you?”

They met their deadline and so did you.

-30

Fake News Is Our Lex Luther

By: Nes Charif

10.11.18

As a child, I always wanted to be a journalist. It was all I could ever imagine doing. I didn’t want to be a Disney princess or dress up a Barbie, I wanted to be Lois Lane. Yes, that feisty reporter for the Metropolis newspaper, the Daily Planet, and none other than Superman’s love interest—also a fake character in the world of D.C. comics. Nowadays, some may say that the comic character and real-life journalists are comparable, both being ‘fake’. Those of you diving into the world of journalism must have heard or read about it frequently in the last couple years, “Fake News.” The worn-out phrases popularized by the president of the United States himself, Donald Trump. You’ve heard it relentlessly, but what does it really mean for journalists now?

When I tell people I study journalism I get one of the same two responses almost, always. “Don’t tell me you’re a liberal pushing propaganda and fake news.” Or, “Good. That is so important.”

Indeed, it is important. But, don’t get me wrong fake news is just as significant because with the country being more politically divided than ever it is crucial you set yourself apart and make it clear that you are a serious journalist with high ethics, honesty and integrity.

To do that, you need to know some vital information about the industry right now. Some of that information I’m learning myself every day. The art of journalism is ever changing and is not what it used to be. One of the biggest technological cultural breakthroughs is social media. This is where it becomes dangerous for journalists and people start getting confused. That is because it is the center of fake articles being spread virally by one simple click. It is also where people dig to find information about you from years prior. For some of us new journalists that means childhood. This is how the world communicates the fastest now, this is where some conspiracies are born and despite all attempts to eliminate them, they live on the internet forever. Remember that when you send out your next tweet. Someone wise once told me, “You always want to tell a story, you never want to be the story.” A saying all journalists should eat, live and breathe by. In today’s world credible journalists are now being singled out by the president, and his supporters who have lost their faith in the practice of journalism. This has made it difficult for journalists to stay out of the story and forced to defend their integrity.

Recently, American journalist and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper was accused of dramatizing a live shot from his 2008 hurricane Florence coverage. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., condemned the anchor on twitter posting a picture of Cooper standing a few feet under water while just a couple yards away stood his camera crew with their feet just inches below the water. Donald Trump Jr. claimed Cooper was exaggerating the news as he does when trying to make his father, the president, look bad. With a vast public response from Trump supporters and retweets of the alleged overplay, Cooper was forced to address the rumor on CNN defending his credibility with footage from his live shot that day and again explaining on air that the water where he was standing was actually subsiding and that he was moving out of the way from the road in which was being used to evacuate people. A total of eight minutes broadcasting the truth debunking what was rumored to be ‘fake news.’

Reiterating fake news and what it means for journalist now? It means that we are inevitably going to be attacked for doing our job if we report something someone doesn’t like. Now, we are being watched more closely than we have ever been, it’s almost unprecedented. Even if you do everything right, someone will always question your credibility and it is our duty to always be prepared with facts, evidence, and the truth. The change that has come to journalism will really test the teachings of our predecessors and we cannot disappoint. Our line of work is in jeopardy and there is little to no room for mistakes.

Not long ago, my professors and also directors for the DePaul Center for Journalism and Excellence, Carol Marin and Don Moseley told our class that “Journalism is giving up part of your freedom.” That means be aware of what you say, make sure it does not sound biased because it will be grounds for scrutiny. Speak on a factual basis, we all have opinions, I know. Keep them to yourself. Keep in mind that in some cases, you have to be careful of what you wear. During the gubernatorial forum on NBC 5 this past September I remember a classmate making a comment to Carol Marin about wearing the color red to moderate the forum. Perhaps indicating to viewers that she supports a particular political party, this was not true, but it was something Carol said was a concern because it may look that way when in reality it was the chosen color for technical reasons on camera.

My fellow journalists, the world needs us, and they need us to be well prepared for whatever comes our way. Fake news does exist, but so do we. Those of us who are dedicated to find out the truth no matter who tries to stop us or discredit us is what will keep journalism thriving. The battle with fake news is just a hiccup we may encounter, but remember that the facts are on your side. Believe in yourself, and with that journalism will prevail. My fictional hero, Lois Lane said it best, “There are three rules in journalism – believe none of what you hear, half of what you see and everything you write.”

-30-

by Madison Gardner

Numbers and statistics are a helpful tool many journalists use to their advantage, but sometimes someone’s narrative gets completely overshadowed by this reporting technique. According to the Chicago Tribune, there have been over 2,300 people shot since the beginning of the year and it is no shock that the number will continue to grow. Reporters can’t possibly tell each of these 2,300 stories, but the ones they do tell, deserve time, compassion and empathy. For a young reporter about to break into the industry, it is increasingly important to develop skills early on to help tell the stories of victims in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, our current reporting default focuses heavily on statistics or the bigger picture rather than individuals.

The “who, what, when, where, why, how” in any story is important. In crime stories the “who” should always be the most significant. Dakarai Turner, a general assignment reporter at Fox32 in Chicago has had his fair share of reporting homicides, rapes and assaults. He says that being genuine and respectful are what land him the interviews – not bombarding victims and their families with questions and demands. Out of ten victims he approaches, he believes that at least six will speak with him. He says it’s because he thinks about how he would want to be approached, and how he would want someone to treat his mother. It’s not because he beat his competitors to the story – it’s because he genuinely cares.

When taking a look back in Chicago’s somewhat recent history, we can examine the treatment of Hadiya Pendleton’s story. Pendleton was a 15-year-old girl who was shot just one week after performing at President Obama’s inauguration and whose name has made the headlines for years. This is one of the perfect examples of journalists pushing the easy statistic-based coverage aside and giving someone a true narrative.

So how does a reporter approach a victim? Well if you’re not a veteran reporter, there are a handful of things to take into consideration when approaching a victim. According to the Media Crime Victim Guide, there are a number of steps a journalist can take to ensure a comfortable environment for victims/survivors. Very rarely will you find a victim that is composed and eager to speak immediately after something has happened to them or someone they know. So as a reporter on a deadline, the most important thing you can do is create a genuine human connection and respect their wishes – even if it means leaving without an interview.

It’s sometimes tricky to be both courteous and compassionate but still try to meet those harsh deadlines in the every-changing news cycle. The main takeaway here is that as humans we all have emotions and that compassion can’t be taught – it is innate. Journalists must take each and every opportunity to make a story more than just a statistic by giving people platforms to share their own narrative.

-30-

The Rise of Push Notifications and the Death of Moderation

By Megan Stringer

Striking workers. Suicidal nannies. Political name bashing. Mayoral run announcements. Celebrity profiles. Terrorist attacks. Mass shootings. Movie reviews. Smarter living tips.

These are just a handful of any given story topics I get from push notifications throughout the day (and the wee hours of the morning –– a 3 a.m. push notification is not uncommon either).

As an active citizen and news consumer, I might want to immediately know if Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel isn’t running for re-election anymore. But I’m not so sure I need to be urgently informed about a Lady Gaga profile.

That doesn’t mean both aren’t equally important. I strongly believe that hard political news isn’t more essential than well-done features and narrative reporting. A diverse media diet is crucial, but so is the way in which that diet is delivered and consumed.

While push notifications are a great invention for urgent breaking news and announcements waiting on full stories and context, they’re often abused by major news outlets. What was once a way to immediately provide functional and pertinent information for steadfast readers has grown into just another way to prompt readers to click on an article and give another page view. But page views don’t always build trust and relationships, two things news publications should be more focused on than metrics alone.

When I checked my phone around lunch break today, after not tuning into the news for around four hours, here’s what I saw from the New York Times:

“A suicidal nanny and three babies stabbed: An attack at a New York maternity center exposed the underground industry of ‘birth tourism.’”

While this might be a fascinating and meaningful story, it doesn’t make for a good push notification. Editors should carefully consider not only the stories they push out to readers and subscribers, but the wording they use in them. Suicidal nanny is sensational and sensitive. While someone might click to learn more, there’s no hint to what this story really entails other than some likely drama.

When a publication sends out a push notification to a reader’s home screen on their phone, they’re actively interrupting that reader’s day and their thought process. Rather than people asking for and seeking out information, it’s provided to readers without context in what’s considered their personal space. They’ve downloaded your app because they trust you, and they still care about the news you can give them.

It’s important to make sure that information is accessible. However, there should be a balance between availability and overzealous, sensationalized content. People will read something if it impacts them, even if it doesn’t seem like a flashy story.

If a reader is receiving a push notification from an outlet, they’re likely a loyal follower of that reporting. Push notifications are different from advertisements in the sense that you can’t randomly stumble across them. You probably won’t get push notifications until you’ve downloaded a publication’s app.

Some might argue that it’s okay to bombard readers then, because they’ve downloaded the app –– that’s what they’re here for. But at the same time, that devoted reader has given your news outlet precedent over other endless platforms. So what are you giving them in return? Are you abusing their faithful readership?

In the case of the suicidal nanny push notification, the New York Times is.

If language matters in our reporting, it matters in our social media posts and push notifications too. The story branded with the death of children and a suicidal nanny draws comparison to the types of push notifications sent out in June this year, when celebrity figures Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain took their own lives within weeks of each other.

The news is often a tragedy of necessity. Those push notifications were hard on a lot of people. While news junkies want to stay in the loop, it’s a lot to ask of somebody emotionally to tug them out of whatever they’re doing and bring to mind topics like suicide, murder or natural disasters.

Some news organizations recognize this and have been working to better connect with readers. USA Today launched a version of their app earlier this year that allows readers to choose from specific topics they want alerts on, rather than broad categories. For example, people can select news categories like Hurricane Michael and Russia, rather than simply environmental issues and politics. It’s a plus for the readers, who get information they want and can use, and for publications, who learn more about each individual mobile reader.

This is an improvement from the past couple years, when the online media site Mic sent out push notifications that played video directly on a viewer’s lock screen. It’s one thing to tell people a story is published, but another to throw them right into it.

Overall, local news outlets seem to understand this concept better than national outlets. Push notifications I receive from the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times are exactly the sort of breaking local news that I turn to them for. Because I respect their process of mobile circulation, I still turn to them for feature and other more narrative reads. I won’t necessarily do that for a news organization if I feel like they’ve betrayed my trust by bombarding me with content they only want me to click on for their metrics. Citizens are smart, and can sense that.

So instead, I swipe the notification away.

By: Benjamin Conboy

Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi was getting married. Being a Saudi citizen living in Virigina with a Turkish fiancé, he had to retrieve the necessary documents to get married from the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

His fiancé stayed in the car while Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post and a critic of the Saudi government, went inside. He never came out.

Turkish officials proclaimed that the Saudis killed Khashoggi inside the consulate. They said a 15-person Saudi team flew into Istanbul the day he disappeared. CNN reported Thursday that US intelligence intercepts show the Saudis had previously tried to lure Khashoggi back to the kingdom to arrest him.

A senior Turkish official quoted in the New York Times said the team had dismembered Khashoggi inside the consulate, using a bone saw that they had brought for that express purpose.

Turkish officials are incensed and are seeking to search the consulate, which the Saudis are holding up, citing anonymous security concerns. Sen. Lindsey Graham said, “There will be hell to pay” if the Saudis did in fact kill him. Sen. Marco Rubio said that if true, “what’s going to happen on Capitol Hill is a complete revolt against our policies with Saudi Arabia.” President Donald Trump said his administration is “looking at it very, very seriously.”

The intrigue into what happened to Khashoggi has reached the upper echelons of our government and of the international community.

But where was the concern for Raif Badawi, another Saudi journalist who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for “insulting Islam,” who nearly lost his life as a result of the punishment?

Suddenly Turkey, a country which has been no great friend to the free press, is now concerned for a journalist who has been a critic of their geopolitical foe. There wasn’t much concern from the Turks for Ahmet Hakan, a Turkish columnist who had been followed home by four men in a black car and beaten within an inch of his life just weeks after the state denounced his publication as “terrorist propaganda.”

Here in the U.S., with all of our laws and our beloved First Amendment, journalists aren’t dismembered in government buildings or followed home by men in black cars. But since the beginning of the Trump era, the U.S. has backslid into using the same type of rhetoric that authoritarian governments use toward journalists.

One sign we haven’t exactly been the bastion of free speech we used to be is that the United Nations human rights council said Trump’s attacks on the press “increase the risk of journalists being targeted with violence.”

That same week, Eric Trump shared a video of Trump supporters at a rally, surrounding the press box like an angry mob screaming expletives at reporters. The son of the president was sharing the video not as a condemnation, but as an abettor.

The president’s rhetoric has not been contained by the United States’ borders. When confronted with a report that his regime had executed 13,000 prisoners of war, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad said it was “fake news.” An official in Myanmar likewise called the well-documented genocide of the Rohingya “fake news.” An op-ed in the leading communist newspaper in China said, “Trump is right, fake news is the enemy, something China has known for years.”

Sen. Jeff Flake acknowledged the co-opting of Trump’s rhetoric on the Senate floor on Thursday. “Oppressors of the world have taken to parroting their favorite lines from the White House,” he said.

Journalists have already started to fight back in America. More than 200 newspapers across the country joined forces and published an editorial denouncing Trump’s “enemy of the people” attacks on Aug. 16.

But while the rhetoric towards journalists in America damages the public’s opinion of them, journalists are not being given 1,000 lashes for doing their job as they are in other parts of the world. It is high time that the journalists of the world stand together in the face of violent rhetoric and violent actions.

-30-

By: Marissa Nelson

Newsrooms build relationships (and trust) in communities through events, social media and special projects

In the era of “fake news” and heightened distrust of anonymous sources, the public is skeptical of the media.

This year a Knight Foundation and Gallup study found that nearly 70 percent of U.S. adultssaid their trust in the news media has decreased over the past decade. However, 69 percent of respondents felt their trust could be restored.

The question, then, is how?

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethicsaddresses many of the concerns Americans have including inaccuracy, bias and accountability of the media. And most news organizations concerned about maintaining the public’s trust adhere to industry standards. So it seems that there isn’t a break down in media ethics, but little understanding of the reporting process.

Enter engagement journalism.

Engagement — formerly thought to be about website clicks, retweets and Facebook likes — has transformed into an idea better explained by its goal rather than its process.

Community engagementputs readers’, viewers’ and citizens’ interests at the center of the work a news organizations does. This means finding ways to report on topics most important to readers, involving viewers in the reporting process and finding ways to get stories in to the hands of citizens most affected by the news.

Engagement looks different for every newsroom because it revolves around the needs of individual communities. Nonetheless, each project seeks to collaborate and build relationships with readers. Turning away from a one-way communication model, engagement reporting invites citizens to participate in journalism.

For instance, in 2012 Jennifer Brandel started Curious Cityat WBEZ. The project invites listeners to submit questions about the city, and reporters find the answers. Instead of assuming what the public is interested in WBEZ asks listeners directly.

This model proved to be effective in not only building relationships but also expanding WBEZ’s reach. The project brought in over 10,000 more listener email addressesand led to some of WBEZ’s most popular stories. Three years after starting the project, Brandel co-founded Hearkento bring the model to other newsrooms.

Social media can also be used to foster engagement. In 2016 Vox created a Facebook Groupfor people enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, fostering a space for journalists and readers to exchange information. The group now has over 6,000 members and continues to be a space readers look to for information and conversation.

Some news organizations are even turning to events to engage their communities.

This year ProPublica Illinois began working with Free Street Theatre to hold workshops across the state. The workshop uses theatre exercises to talk about issues like the economy, media representation and changing demographics at a local level.

As an Illinois news outlet based in Chicago, the workshops allow ProPublica Illinois to learn about the communities — outside of Chicago — it will be reporting on. It is a space for reporters to listen to the community and learn what matters most to them. For example, in Toulon, a city with a declining population, workshop leaders Logan Jaffe and Coya Paz learned that some residents fear it won’t exist in 20 years.

The workshop also serves as an opportunity for the publication to introduce itself to Illinoisans and begin building relationships with them.

Similarly, City Bureau, a journalism lab on Chicago’s South Side, began holding weeklyPublic Newsroomsin a coffee shop next to its newsroom in 2017. The purpose of the Public Newsroomis to create a space for ideas to be exchanged. Here, reporters and community members learn from one another, talking about issues like crime reporting, gun trafficking and the stigma surrounding mental health.

Through each workshop, City Bureau connects with new community members — over 1,200 since its inception — and provides an opportunity to discuss reporting practices, processes and ethics. The event doesn’t shy away from criticizing its own industry and imagining how it can be improved.

How does the media portray the South Side? Is it fair? Why was a source used? How did the reporter access the documents they referenced?

These are all fair and welcomed topics of conversation at the Public Newsroom.

Other news organizations, like Mississippi Today, have begun collaborating with City Bureau, bringing Public Newsrooms to their communities. At 14 East, DePaul University’s online magazine, we have begun holding monthly Public Newsrooms, too.

Engagement reporting, though, doesn’t have to be an event series or groundbreaking project. Or at least it doesn’t start that way. It begins by using the resources available (something as simple as Twitter) to ask citizens two questions: What matters to them and what do they need to know?

From there, it’s up to reporters to do what they can to answer those questions.

-30-

By: Darrah Perryman

Their narrative spread like wildfire – quickly claiming ownership of eight million eyes and ears. Two black men were arrested in a Starbucks store for not purchasing anything on Thursday, April 12^th.

And the aftermath was nothing short of powerful.

Outraged patrons watched their arrests in awe, then anger, quickly pulling out their phones to document the day’s events. The footage soon demanded cell phone screens, televisions, newspapers and the mayor’s attention with a major public relations campaign now on the brinks.

Bystanders’ cries for answers from the police officers were heard on camera, “Why are you arresting them for something that we do, too?” one patron yelped. The harsh moments would soon threatened the reputation of a staple in the breakfast industry and raise more questions about race-relations in a polarized democratic society.

“There has to be more than the story,” some users gasped on Twitter minutes after the video made its rounds. One Twitter user wrote, “I’ve been going to afternoon meetings at Starbucks for years. Sometimes I order something and sometimes I don’t. There are plenty of people around me doing the same. But I’m white so I guess I get a pass.”

Social media has done what journalists have yearned to do for decades – engage their audience and shed light on moments that might typically go unnoticed.

Weeks removed from the haunting incident, Starbucks issued a statement, decrying the arrest and explaining the situation: The manager asked the two men to leave the restaurant if they weren’t going to purchase anything, and they refused, explaining that they were waiting for their friend to arrive. The manager then called 911 for assistance in removing the men from the vicinity. The city of Philadelphia has since reached a settlement with the two men, rewarding them each $1 and a promise to invest $200,000 in a youth entrepreneur program, one that the two men will help support.

Still, for many members of marginalized communities, moments like these are typical, though not recorded and shared on external platforms to effect change. But social media has given our audience the tools to inform the world of these realities, and it also makes journalists more valuable than ever.

Our users are opening the door to matters they deeply care about, but will we listen? Reporters now have a direct line of communication with their audience. Access to voices, sources, news, and issues that deeply stir readers are mere fingertips away.

Ignoring this tool or simply being intimidated by such advancements is disadvantageous for reporters. For, it’s only hand-in-hand with our readers and listeners that we can move forward to the future of journalism and reach promised new heights.

By Emmanuel Camarillo

So, you’re a young journalist and you want to be in the news business? Find a local television station that’s hiring.

At least that’s what a recent study by the Knight Foundation on the state of local television news seems to conclude. Unlike radio or newspaper outlets, local TV news appears to be holding fast, if not thriving. Which means my decision to focus on broadcast news is looking better and better.

According to the study, local TV news is profitable in part due to the steady influx of political money every two years. To the surprise of no one, advertising dollars still contribute big bucks to programming but the study notes that TV stations that run local news get a median of 55 percent of their ad revenue from that programming.

I was surprised to learn that TV news has been immune to the issues that plagued print bureaus not so long ago. In fact, the decline of newspaper subscriptions has been a blessing for TV news. The Knight Foundation finds that in the decade since the last recession many newspapers were forced to cut staff. In that time span newspapers laid off 46.1 percent of its employees while local TV news employment increased by 4.9 percent.

Another unexpected tidbit is how little impact the popularity of online news sites has had on TV news survival predictions. The Knight Foundation study says that only a handful of these websites are self-sustaining and are not likely making a return on investment, I.e., they aren’t threats at the moment.

I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that the emergence of online-only news channels signaled the final hours for traditional local broadcast news. It seems that feeling is unfounded and TV news is not going gentle into that good night just yet.

Interestingly, despite all of the new ways Americans get their news, good old television is still the most popular way for people to learn what’s going on in their neck of the woods. The report notes that Nielsen’s ratings show local TV news reaches more people than network or cable news. According to that data, local TV news reaches 46 percent of adults while cable TV news reaches only 22 percent.

Not to hammer the point home too much but Pew data also states that local TV news is still where Americans most often get their news; 50 percent of the time, in fact.

That fancy new iPhone and Android with the unlimited data plan is helping the TV news business as well by cutting down costs previously associated with buying expensive cameras and satellite equipment. And to think all you use your phone for is playing Candy Crush and browsing Bumble.

All of this points to a stability for local news in the coming years. The Knight Foundation states that local TV will remain profitable for at least the next decade. A key element to this stability is the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, which the study says “opened the floodgates” for political advertising. Local TV news revenues in that area are set to increase from $2.65 billion in 2016 to over $3 billion in 2020. Citizens United: Bad for politics, good for your local TV news station.

The entire report is available online here, and it includes more information on the current state of television news and what the industry might look like in the next decade.

I for one hope that local TV news does in fact remain stable for years to come, or, at least, until I graduate and find a job as a reporter at some hamlet in the US.

-30-