EOTO 4: Final Exam: Shana Alexander

Shana Alexander is considered one of the greatest female journalists of all time.

Alexander paved the way for many female journalists, pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable of a female reporter and what wasn't. From her award winning columns to her appearances on "60 Minutes", she had an impressive career that still has an impact to this day.

Shana Alexander

Shana Alexander was born on Oct. 8, 1925 in New York City. Alexander came from a family of writers. Her mother, Cecelia Ager, was a well-known reporter. Ager was the first female writer for Variety and was also a movie critic for the NYC newspaper PM. Alexander's father, Milton Ager, was a music composer, writing many famous songs including "Happy Days Are Here Again." 

Cecelia Ager 

Milton Ager

While Alexander grew up around two of New York City's best writers, she didn't intend on being a writer. Alexander attended Vassar College in New York and graduated in 1945 with a degree in anthropology. At the age of 19, Alexander married her first husband, but quickly divorced. 

Her second marriage to Stephen Alexander lasted 12 years before she divorced again. Alexander had one child, a daughter named Katherine, who passed away at the age of 25.

Alexander's writing career began when she took a summer job as a copy clerk at her mother's newspaper, PM. Eventually, she began her career as a freelance writer for Junior Bazaar and Mademoiselle magazine, and her career took off from there.

Alexander moved on to work for Life magazine in. the 1960s where she had a column titled "The Feminine Eye." Her column won awards for her, and her popularity began to take off.

In 1962, she wrote an article for Life titled "They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies: Medical miracle puts moral burden on small committee." This sparked national debate in regards to the public health system in the United States, particularly when it comes to the allocation of dialysis treatment

Alexander became the first female editor for McCall's magazine (a women's magazine) but quit due to the sexist environment. Alexander spent a portion of her career advocating for women's rights and women's fair treatment in the workplace. In the 1960s and 1970s, Alexander reported on key issues such as the women's rights movement and the battle over abortion. 

A 1960s cover of McCall's Magazine

Alexander also spoke out when it came to political matters, such as Nixon's response to the Vietnam War. This earned her a spot on "60 Minutes" as a replacement for Nicholas Von Hoffman. Alexander was placed with James J. Kilpatrick on a segment of the show called "Point/Counterpoint." It was essentially a debate show, where the two hosts are given the same topic and had an allotted amount of time to discuss their side of the argument. Alexander was the liberal point of view, and Kilpatrick was the conservative side. 

Many credit Alexander's performance on the show as the kickstart for getting "60 Minutes" off the ground. Alexander's popularity soared after this. Viewers loved watching "Point/Counterpoint" because the hosts' time to deliver their argument was always organized and uninterrupted. 

Chris Wright announces "Point/Counter Point" with Nicholas Von Hoffman and James J. Kilpatrick

Alexander and Kilpatrick's debates were so popular that it was famously parodied on "Saturday Night Live" where Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd played as Alexander and Kilpatrick, where Aykryod delivered the famous line, "Jane, you ignorant slut."

While the bulk of Alexander's fame comes from "Point/Counterpoint", she always maintained that her passion and talent for writing was the root of her love for journalism. 

Alexander wrote a few non-fiction novels such as "Anyone's Daughter" and "Nutcracker" which was turned into a television miniseries in 1987. 

On June 23, 2005, Shana Alexander died after her battle with cancer.

Alexander is considered a trailblazer for journalism, paving the way for many aspiring female journalists. Her boldness for speaking out against hot button issues earned her a popularity and stardom that no other female reporter had seen. She inspired many, her work encouraging and motivating others to carry on her work after she was gone.

Movie Reflection: "Good Night, and Good Luck"

"Good Night, and Good Luck" (2005), directed by George Clooney, is an impactful film showcasing the government's involvement when it comes to silencing the media. It's a high profile movie with stars such as David Strathairn, Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Daniels and more. 

The film follows the protagonist Edward Murrow (David Strathairn), a veteran journalist who is going toe-to-toe with Senator Joseph McCarthy in the days of The Red Scare. 

Despite the accusations of being involved in communist actions, Murrow pushes back against McCarthy and the government to expose the corruption and falsity of McCarthy. Murrow continues to use his position and show at CBS to tell the truth about McCarthyism. Murrow holds strong even when his CBS superiors are urging him to stop and threaten to move his CBS show to the Sunday afternoon slot.

Murrow works with his fellow CBS reporters and editors to create a show that exposes McCarthy for his wrongdoings. 

Edward Murrow

Murrow's actions throughout the film is a great example of how journalists should be standing up to the government in these moments of attempted censorship. Murrow's determination to tell the truth and passion for the job led to the downfall of McCarthy and his scare-tactics. 

Senator Joseph McCarthy

We're in a day and age where the government is going out of their way to put a lid on anything that could bring criticism and downfall to them. The government wants their power, and they want tight control on what the media says. 

This isn't exactly a new idea. "Good Night, and Good Luck" in and of itself is a cinematic retelling of real life events that actually happened in the 1950s. This has been going on for decades and even before then. The government has always had something to hide. They've always made desperate attempts to distract from what is really going on behind closed doors of the higher political power.

I have no doubt that this is going to get worse, and it's up to future journalists to take a stand against them. 

There's no question that it's scary, and we've all seen what happens to journalists when they speak out and get too close to the truth. But it's a risk that journalists should be taking already and a risk that future journalists are going to have to take.

After all, the future depends on it.

In theory, the media and the government should be working together. That's the ideal relationship, but not the relationship that they've had for a very long time...if ever. 

It seems that with every passing day though, we're getting further from that goal. Every year brings bigger and more unbelievable events, and some of those events never even see the light of day from the media.

Slimy politicians create a shady mess with even more questionable means of getting rid of the truth. Or, at least, getting rid of the vessel who is going to tell the truth. 

You can't run from what's true and real, but you can shut down the people willing to call you out on it. 

The polarization of this country is largely due to this. Nobody can be moderate anymore, and the ones who try to be are shunned for not choosing a side. 

In many ways, we're beginning to see a resurgence in the concept of McCarthyism...minus communism.

Cancel culture is a relatively new idea in America, and it's something that has totally exploded in the last few years. The internet's definition of cancel culture is as follows:

"The practice of withdrawing support for public figures or companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."

On the surface, that might not seem all that bad. 

I mean, it does kind of make sense. Stopping support for someone like Bill Cosby whom has been accused and charged with numerous counts of sexual assault, sexual abuse, misconduct, harassment, etc. seems like it would make sense. 

That's what cancel culture claims to do, but that's not exactly true. Instead, cancel culture looks a little more like this:

Trump supporter? CANCELED.

Biden apologist? CANCELED.

Anti-war protester? CANCELED.

Pro-war activist? CANCELED.

No one is allowed to have an opinion anymore. Democrats are "canceling" Trump supporters. Republicans are "canceling" Biden supporters. 

Why? 

Simply because they don't agree, and they don't like it.

Political differences are hardly any reason to not support someone. Earlier last year, A-list actor Chris Pratt was publicly ridiculed and shamed after it was discovered on Twitter that he identifies as a republican and previously voted for former president Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Chris Pratt

People jumped all over it. They were digging through his social media and personal information to find evidence of this, blasting his personal political and religious views in a negative way as a means of "canceling" him. 

Pratt's most famous celebrity pals such as Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo (who both identify as democrats) defended their Avengers co-star publicly after the internet targeted Pratt.

People are being accused of being "traitors" for not agreeing with others' ideas. In today's age, you can't have a stance or opinion on something without risking cancellation. It's our God given right to have different thoughts and viewpoints, and it's shameful that so many people are being attacked for it.

The media has done nothing to help solve this. If anything, they've caused it and made it worse.

People's lives are being ruined for being accused of these different things. Very similar to those accused of communism during the McCarthy era. It's dangerous how similar that time period is to today, and it's scary how history is seemingly repeating itself.

We need to return to a time where it was acceptable to have different opinions. A time where democrats and republicans could live peacefully together. A time where pro-abortion and anti-abortion protesters could respect one another. A time where those stuck in the middle weren't mocked and harassed.

And a time where everyone was free to tell the truth and have an opinion.

EOTO 3: What I Learned: Celebrity Journalism

Celebrity journalism is one of the most followed topics in the world of journalism. Celebrity journalism keeps up with the stories of the most prominent figures in Hollywood, digging into every nook and cranny of their private life. 

Celebrity journalism has been around for a very long time, and its origins trace back to the John Quincy Adams administration. The first presidential interview was none other than Quincy Adams, who was interviewed by Anne Newport Royall. Readers loved this interview and took to the idea of this kind of journalism. 

Anne Newport Royall 

After this, the celebrity news business took off. It advanced through media and newspapers, many publications using yellow journalism to plaster their headlines and front pages with celebrity news. Publications were bringing in more and more subscribers from celebrity stories -- and they began to make a heavy profit off of it. 

Marilyn Monroe on the cover of Screen Stories in 1953

The first gossip magazine in the U.S. was titled Photoplay, and it featured celebrity figures such as Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Margaret Sullavan and Norma Shearer. It was one of the most popular magazines of its time, and it was the leading celebrity magazine even after the competition came in.

Margaret Sullavan's Photoplay cover

Suddenly, America's most prominent political figures, movie stars and other big entertainment names were ending up in papers and special edition magazines weekly. 

Everyday citizens and readers were fascinated to get the inside scoop on their favorite (as well as America's favorite) celebrities. There was a race for other publications to get in on this action, but there was one central question.

What is the appeal of celebrity journalism?

Aside from the entertainment, it was a distraction. A huge draw to these stories was (and still is) the fact that it takes attention away from public life and politics. It took away a lot of that coverage, which was a huge benefit for many readers. It was a break from the hustle and bustle of everyday life, and it was much "lighter" news. 

And even today, celebrity journalism still has the same effect.

Big headlines and tabloid style magazines are still huge when it comes to celebrity news. E! News and Entertainment Tonight are two of the biggest celebrity news outlets that use social media as their most important tool. Social media has brought a new sense of closeness, and it has only enhanced celebrity journalism.

When it comes to celebrity news, I enjoy it to some degree. I like to know when my favorite country artists are up for an award or have announced a new album. And I will even admit that sometimes I don't mind it too much when the Kardashians make their way onto my social media feed (although I do believe that they are the most overrated family in history).

I think that celebrity journalism, when consumed responsibly, isn't a bad thing. I do think it has negative effects when it's the only media content that a person is taking in. It's good to a certain amount, but it has its limits.

 

EOTO 3: The History of Anonymous Sources

In the world of journalism, confidentiality plays a huge role. In certain situations, sources may wish to remain anonymous, meaning that their identity remains a mystery to the story that the journalist is working on. This can occur due to a number of reasons. 

The source may fear retaliation to their personal safety or to their loved ones. Journalists are legally bound to protect the identity of their sources, and there are special laws that help enforce this. 

Confidentiality is central to journalism, and it's vitally important that it's protected by the law.

The idea of having confidential sources is a bit controversial. Some people believe that anonymous sources diminishes the credibility of the journalists' reporting. 

When it comes to legal proceedings, it can become tricky if the journalist refuses to give up their source's identity. Some people find this difficult to navigate and that it puts a hold on the justice system.

Regardless of negative opinions on anonymous sources, they have played prominent roles in the history of journalism. 

One of the most notable and famous anonymous sources is tied to the Watergate Scandal in 1972.

An anonymous whistleblower by the name of "Deep Throat" leaked information to reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two young reporters at "The Washington Post", in regards to the truth about the Watergate break-in. 

Deep Throat exposed secret White House recordings of President Nixon revealing his involvement with the scandal, which prompted Woodward and Bernstein to begin a long road of investigative journalism to unveil the truth of Watergate.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein

Woodward and Bernstein were successful in their reporting, and it won them a Pulitzer in 1973. Woodward and Bernstein went on to write the best-selling book "All The President's Men", which also earned them awards and national attention.

In 1976, their book was turned into a hit cinematic film starring Robert Redford as Woodward and Dustin Hoffman as Bernstein. The film's real-life plot was described as "the most devastating detective story of this century."

The identity of "Deep Throat" remained a mystery until 2005, when former FBI assistant director Mark Felt revealed himself to be the person behind Deep Throat. Felt went to great lengths to hide his identity, and despite Woodward and Bernstein's promise to keep him anonymous, Felt came up with ways to stay under the radar. Felt and Woodward met in secret locations and created a set of signals to communicate. 

This shows the importance of journalists keeping their word to anonymous sources. If Woodward or Bernstein had given Felt up, the entire investigation would've been blown, and there's no telling what kind of consequences Felt would have faced. Felt passed away in 2008 at the age of 95, leaving behind one of the greatest anonymous source success stories.

Mark Felt AKA "Deep Throat"

When it comes to the legal protection of confidential sources, there are state laws put into place. 

These are called shield laws. 

In the United States, shield laws protect journalists against the disclosure of confidential information...this includes the identity of their sources. 

This term is referred to as "reporter's privilege" 

There isn't a federal shield law, meaning that not every state is protected. The details vary by state, and despite attempts to create a federal law, it hasn't been successful.

The Free Flow of Information Act is a bill intended to provide this kind of protection to all 50 states in the United States. 

The bill has been presented to Congress, but it has yet to make it through and made into federal law. 

Essentially, this would allow all U.S. journalists to have the right to refuse to disclose any confidential information or sources. 

When it comes to interviews and using sources/information, there are layers to what can be used and what can't. 

When most people think of a journalistic interview, they think of an "on the record" interview. This means that the source's identity and any information/direct quotes that are shared can be used in the story. 

Then there are some middle ground interviews such as "on background" and "on deep background".

"On background" establishes that a source's information and direct quotes can be used, however, their real name cannot be identified. Usually the reporter will use a general title or a fake name. 

"On deep background" means that the source's information can be used, but they cannot be directly quoted or named in any way.

Finally, there are "off the record" interviews which strictly prohibit the source's name, information and direct quotes from being used. With "off the record" sources, the reporter can only use the information that was given to go find other information and sources. 

Confidentiality and anonymity is crucial to journalism, particularly investigative journalism. As we saw with the Watergate Scandal, the anonymous identity of "Deep Throat" was a huge part in the success of Woodward and Bernstein's investigating and reporting. 

We as journalists have a duty to protect our sources, and it's important to the stories that need to be told.

EOTO 2: What I Learned: Girl Reporters

There's no doubt that female journalists have come a long way since the beginning.

Women have made tremendous progress with making their mark in the world of journalism. Now, some of the most famous and respected journalists are women.

Christiane Amanpour 

A British-Iranian journalist who is one of the most influential female reporters

Female journalists are much more respected now than they were in the 1800s, but even during that time, that didn't stop women journalists from doing their civic duty and reporting the truth. 

If it weren't for the female journalists of history, female reporters wouldn't be nearly as advanced as they are today.

Many female journalists in the 1880s and 1990s were undercover. Many publications weren't hiring women, or they were severely looked down upon. There were dozens of female reporters who were striving to make their mark in the media world, and there are a few that were most influential. 

Nellie Bly was a young female journalist in the 1880s who dedicated her career to reporting. Nellie Bly was a pen name that she used instead of her real name, Elizabeth Cochran. Bly reported on numerous topics such as working conditions of girls, corruption and poverty in Mexico. 

At the peak of Bly's career, she went undercover and was committed to Blackwell's Island, a mental asylum in New York. Bly's investigation was focused on exposing the mistreatment of mentally ill patients. She wrote and published Ten Days in a Mad-House, which earned national attention and earned credibility for herself.

Nellie Bly

Eva McDonald Valesh worked for the "St. Paul Daily Globe" at only 21-years-old. Although she was young, she was fierce and committed to her work. McDonald focused her reporting on women's working conditions in Minneapolis. McDonald was a determined labor journalist who worked under the name "Eva Gay." 

McDonald also worked undercover, disguising herself as a worker at flour mills and garment factories. McDonald published her first article "Among Girls Who Toil" in 1888. She reported on the poor working conditions, describing the crowded workshops, little ventilation, dangerous chemicals and sexual harassment from male co-workers and bosses. McDonald's work led to labor strikes from mistreated women, and the poor working conditions were improved.

Eva McDonald Valesh

The motivation of female reporters has played a huge role in changes being made in corrupt societies. Their work ethic and passion undoubtedly paved the way for today's as well as future female journalists who strive to do the same. Journalism is much better and impactful with women in the picture, and these girl reporters are the foundation. 

American journalist Lucy Morgan in 1985

EOTO 2: The Muckrakers

A significant percentage of Americans don't trust journalists. As time has progressed, today's journalists have lost sight of what journalism is supposed to be. Journalism is supposed to tell the truth no matter what. 

From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, there was a group of people who were committed to doing just that.

The muckrakers were a group of journalists who were focused on reporting on true, accurate tellings of economic and political corruption. In simpler terms, they exposed political wrongdoings. 

The term "muckraker" came from President Theodore Roosevelt after he first coined the word during a speech on April 16, 1906 regarding the muckrakers' impact of legislative decisions. Some muckrakers didn’t like the term, while others loved it.

In the beginning, muckrakers were influenced by yellow journalism and many of their publications were yellow journalism style. However, as time went on, some muckrakers outgrew the yellow journalism style. The loud, explosive presentation of information wasn't fitting for some muckrakers after a certain period of time, and they converted to more organized, thought out writing.

Some of the most notable investigative journalists/muckrakers were Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, David Graham Phillips and Upton Sinclair. Each of these muckrakers had different focuses when it came to their reporting. 

Lincoln Steffens dedicated most of his work towards exposing urban corporations for things such as child labor and insurance fraud. One of his most famous works includes "Tweed Days in St. Louis" which included subjects such as child labor, prisons, corporations, insurance companies and religion. 

Lincoln Steffens

Ida Tarbell focused her writing on exposing the actions of the Standard Oil Company. Her most famous work "The History of the Standard Oil Company" exposed the monopolistic behavior of the company. This led many people to not trust the company, and eventually Standard Oil dissolved.

Ida Tarbell

David Graham Phillips' most famous work is titled "The Treason of the Senate: Aldrich, the Head of it All" where he exposes the U.S. Senate of corruption. Phillips' writing led to the creation of the 17th Amendment, which provided the direct election of senators by voters of the states.

David Graham Phillips

Upton Sinclair single handedly changed the food industry with his work "The Jungle." This book led to the passing of two very important acts, the Food Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. "The Jungle" exposed and called out the malpractices of the meatpacking industry, and how the products being put out were not inspected nor regulated.

Upton Sinclair

These muckrakers are perfect examples of how journalism can make a difference, and how it's supposed to make a difference. They used accurate facts and the honest truth to make changes in society for the better. They revolutionized the idea of "investigative journalism" and showed how impactful it can be. 

While these muckrakers are no longer around, there's still hope for a new set of future muckrakers to make a difference.

Today's journalists should take note of their work and follow in their footsteps. Journalists should be focused on making changes and spreading the truth -- no matter what.

It's about time that the truth was put back into journalism.

Movie Reflection: "They Won't Forget"

"They Won't Forget" (1937), directed by Mervyn LeRoy, is a moving drama representation of societal and media influence on real life crime trials. 

The film is based on a novel written by Ward Greene titled Death In the Deep South that was the fictionalized story of a real-life case of the murder of Mary Phagan and lynching of Leo Frank in 1913. 

In the film, the story follows the murder of Mary Clay, a young student who is found mysteriously killed. Her murder and the trial are covered by reporters and different news publications...but not all of the reporting was ethical.

"They Won't Forget" is a cinematic representation of the idea of trial by media. The media affects the trial in a few different ways. 

Towards the middle of the film, a reporter enters the Hale home and unlawfully uses the long-shot information given by Mrs. Hale. This creates a stir, which worsens the fact that Mary's murder is now a nationwide story. There's heavy tension and split, and the big name publications are only adding fuel to the flame.

There's questionable, unsteady evidence that is presented throughout the trial -- and ultimately, Hale is convicted of the murder without much of a fair trial. In the end, his initial outcome is altered to a lessened convicted sentence, but he is murdered by Mary's angry brothers and friends. 

The idea of trial by media is a fairly new idea. Cameras being allowed in the courtroom hasn't always been the norm. Various famous court cases have been televised such as the trials of O.J. Simpson, Ted Bundy, Kyle Rittenhouse and Johnny Depp.

The Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard defamation suit is a recent, real life case where the media played a huge role in the trial. Depp sued his ex-wife Heard for defamation after an op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post accusing him of domestic abuse.

Depp denied these claims and counter argued that it was actually Heard who was abusing him.

There were cameras in the courtroom and the court was broadcasted live every single day of the six-week trial. Millions of people tuned in every day (including myself) to watch the testimonies and see the evidence presented. 

Gender was a huge factor in this case. Depp (along with witnesses) testified that since he is a male, his accusations against Heard's alleged violence and abuse was dismissed. The media followed this case from day one, journalists and viewers alike sharing their opinions on the matter.

While the jury found both Depp and Heard responsible for defaming one another, the court ruled that Heard was guilty.

Heard came back after the loss and claimed that it was the media's influence that persuaded the jury's decision. She claimed that the media coverage and online following put her in an undeserving, negative light. Heard's legal team announced that they were planning to appeal, but as of now there hasn't been an update. 

Trial by media is an important idea, and while it isn't all bad -- it can be devastating if it isn't utilized correctly

Why I Chose Journalism

The Oxford definition for journalism is as follows: "the activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast." 

This is a textbook way of defining journalism as a whole. It's a decent, simple definition. It's straight to the point and it an accurate description.

The only problem is that there is much, much more to journalism than that surface-level definition.

One of my favorite journalists, Katie Couric.

It's a profession that has been around for a long time. It's an occupation that employs reporters from all around the world. Journalism is the vessel for transporting news to the public. The world is the primary journalistic audience. Everyone is exposed it, no matter what.

In recent years, journalism has been considering to be a "dying" profession. Less and less people are wanting to become journalists, but is the field really dying off? 

No. It's changing.

The problem is that it isn't changing for the better. In the last several years, journalism as a whole has taken a turn for the worst. 

Streams of misinformation, censorship and false reporting have leaked into our society, now flooding every major news outlet and chipping away at any and all credibility that journalism has left. 

Former White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, is now a co-host on Fox News.

Only 36% of adult Americans trust the media. This number is growing more and more every year because the number of people getting fed up with false news is increasing.

In high school, I took a foundational print journalism course. Writing had always been my strong suit, and I wanted a class where I could really put my skills to the test. 

I loved that journalism class. My teacher encouraged me, and she told me over and over that I had a real knack for it. I decided my junior year of high school that journalism was going to be my declared major...and I haven't changed it since.

That was when I really started to get into discovering what journalism was all about. It didn't take me very long to learn that it isn't exactly a well-liked profession. I was seeing all the claims of "fake news" and "misinformation" being spread all over.

I was also just getting to the age where I could comprehend and understand how it was affecting our nation. Journalism was turning sour, and it was turning quickly.

I believed that the media could be pointed back in the right direction. I still believe that. It's never too late to try to change something for the better. 

That's my greatest motivation to be a journalist.

Of course there are other aspects about journalism that drive me. I love interviewing sources and telling the stories that I think the world needs to hear. Those stories are the ones that resonate with people. The ones that make a lasting impact. 

I believe that all stories in journalism have potential. The honest, thorough stories are the most impactful. That's been proven over and over again.

Yet somewhere along the way, we lost that honesty.

I want to be a journalist because I believe that there's still a chance and time to save it. I have no doubt that corrupted media has played a significant part in the polarization of the country. At the same time, I have faith that a healed media can bring it back together.

I think that true, genuine journalists can repair the media from the inside out. 

My only hope is that there are enough aspiring journalists like me that share that same dream.

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have my reservations about becoming a journalist. I'm more aware of the reality of being a reporter now than I was two years ago when I started my college journey.

I've struggled on and off with my decision to be a journalist. I've lost sleep over it. I've definitely had a meltdown about it.

What if I can't take the heat of all the people who are going to be against me? What if I can't stand up against the ones trying to silence me? 

I've questioned over and over again whether or not I'm cut out for this. 

Even as a current junior, I've thought about changing my major. I've considered completely starting over on my major credits just because I fear that I don't have what it takes. This is a profession that will chew you up and spit you out if you aren't prepared for it.

But what I've learned is that it can only ruin you if you let it. 

As I said, my greatest motivation for journalism is reuniting this nation through the media. I believe it can be done.

And my only hope is that there are other aspiring journalists who want the same.

EOTO 1: What I Learned: William Lloyd Garrison

Studying the history of journalism and understanding the lives of journalism historians is vitally important to our job as current day, aspiring journalists. The journalists who paved the way for us are the ones who discovered and improved upon a mass media system that has lasted through the years. One of the most influential journalism historians is William Lloyd Garrison, an American journalist in the 1800s. 

Garrison is/was a prime example of just how influential truthful, passionate journalism can (and is supposed to) be. Through his work, Garrison brought light and attention to the people and stories that needed to be told the most. I was fascinated to learn about Garrison and his work because, in my opinion, his work and legacy is exactly what journalism is all about.

William Lloyd Garrison

William Lloyd Garrison was primarily active and best known for his work during the Lincoln administration. Garrison was a powerful, outspoken journalist who dedicated his career to speaking out against slavery and later publicly supporting women's suffrage. 

Garrison was the co-editor on The Genius of Universal Emancipation, a publication that was publicly anti-slave and spoke out against slavery. Garrison worked with Benjamin Lundy, a fellow American abolitionist, who was the founder of The Genius of Universal Emancipation. 

The front page of an issue of The Genius of Universal Emancipation

Later in his career, Garrison went on to publish his own newspaper titled The Liberator in 1831. The newspaper was based out of and published in Boston, Massachusetts. The first issue of The Liberator was dated January 1, 1831 where Garrison made his views extremely clear in this opening quote: 

"I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice...I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard."

Garrison was firm and unapologetic in his beliefs. It was no surprise that his abolitionist arguments were met with support, yet also hate. The Liberator circulated through the United States and England, where he drew both supporters and haters from both areas. 

Garrison was physically and verbally assaulted for his opinions, and his speaking out often led to him being beaten. Garrison was widely hated by U.S. Southerners. In the state of Georgia, there was a $5,000 bounty on Garrison to be arrested and convicted.

Garrison's primary motivation was to shift the beliefs of those who were purchasing and those who owned slaves. 

A section of the front page of an 1860 issue of The Liberator

Garrison wrote on his beliefs throughout The Civil War, literally up until the end in 1865. With 1,820 issues published, The Liberator came to an end in December of 1865. Garrison didn't stop when the war was over. Garrison directed his attention towards women's suffrage and pacifism. He argued that women should be able to hold leadership positions in abolitionist organizations. 

Up until the very end of his life, William Lloyd Garrison spoke out in support of what he believed in and spoke out against what he didn't believe in. Garrison's writing and efforts were supported and equally hated, but his positive efforts proved to be much more effective. 

Woman Suffrage Parade 1915

Garrison spent his life and career writing and fighting for what was right. He did the job of a true journalist. He never backed down from his opinions and never failed to let his opinions be heard. He refused to be silenced by those who disagreed. He sought out the truth and told it without shame or hesitance...something that I think we as journalists today can learn from and should all be reminded of.

William Lloyd Garrison

EOTO 1: Publications and Institutions: The Associated Press and Reuters

In today's society, there are numerous news sources to choose from. There certainly are sources that are more popular and mainstream than others. For my EOTO, my assignment partner and I decided to do our research on wire service news outlets. They are fairly popular amongst readers and the general public.We focused on The Associated Press and Reuters. 

The Associated Press was founded in the U.S. and Reuters was founded in Europe. These are two wire news services news publications that have been around for a long time and have progressed over time. 

A wire service is a news agency that sends out a news copy to subscribers via wire or satellite transmission. There are many wire services that act as news agencies all around the world. Wire news sources usually have reliable, fact checked information and research. In our EOTO, we focused on two of the most popular -- The Associated Press and Reuters. 

The Associated Press (AP) is a widely used news service in The United States. AP was initially founded in the year of 1846 between five different New York newspapers. AP experienced a huge expansion in 1900 when there were multiple mergers. When it comes to the world of journalism (specifically when it comes to grammar and format) The AP Stylebook is crucially important. 

The first AP Stylebook was created in 1951, but the first public stylebook wasn't released until 1977. The stylebook is updated every two years, and it contains up-to-date grammar rules as well politically correct terms, words and phrases. 

For example, AP style forbids the use of the Oxford comma (which I highly disagree with, by the way), which is a critical rule for journalists to follow. AP employs thousands of reporters which allows a wide spectrum of topics to be covered at once. 

Reuters is also a widely used news service, but it is more popular across the pond. Reuters is a news agency owned by Thomson Reuters Corporation. Reuters was founded in 1851 in London and is extremely popular in Europe today. 

Similar to AP, Reuters' writing style is simple and straight to the point. Reuters' headquarters was originally in London, but in 2015 and 2016, Reuters expanded into Canada, and they have a headquarters that currently resides there. 

Reuters is special because it was one of the first news agencies to use computers to transmit data overseas in the 1960s. Also like AP, Reuters employs tons of reporters to be able to cover a lot of ground at one time. 

Wire news services are important because many readers feel as if they are the most reliable, yet timely way to get news. 

They are quick on news updates and often are first to release breaking news. They employ enough reporters to be able to get access to many different stories in different areas. Wire news sources tend to be more trusted and preferred by the public which is something that says a lot for a news source in today's world of misinformation.