The feelings I have on a subject such as this are so complex, that I struggle to articulate them, but it is a mixture of immense frustration and anger, deep sadness, and a drive to change the world for the better and sacrifice myself for the greater good of humanity. I have forcefully lessened my desire to become a war journalist or to entirely dedicate my life to the rights of humanity, but there are many times when I still feel deeply conflicted.

I feel strongly that my own individual life is not worth more than the fair treatment of humanity as a whole. It saddens me so much because there is also the urge to bury myself in the sand and focus solely on family and simple things. I hear from many people that they are not going to have children because of the state of the world. I also have many people close to me who put themselves into a bubble and have children. There are many who rest in between, as well.

For myself, I have never been able to stomach the concept that ignorance is bliss, and I don’t know if that is for better or for worse, but I refuse to exist with a lack of understanding of the suffering being enacted and received in this world and cannot just do nothing about it. This mindset, for me, does come with some degree of nihilism, masochism, intensity and despair. But also, always motivation and strength.

This career I have chosen, journalism, is a decision based on the purpose I am passionate about. This tool of writing I possess allows me to share eloquently and strongly what is going on in the world around us. That is my way of leaving this world better than it was when I happened upon it by being born, an act that was already much too existential for my liking.

Simultaneously, being a journalist, for me, is a constant act of stuffing down my various and lengthy triggers. I don’t allow myself to be deterred by trigger warnings because I don’t want the stuff I’ve been through to affect the things I can witness. Maybe that’s the masochist in me. Not saying it still doesn’t affect me, I just force myself to process the emotions, learn and move forward the best I can.

So, the question of what can we do as journalists, right? While the number of incredible “quote-worthy” statements in the documentary was lengthy, my favorite quote of them all was: “I am not an observer I am a participant,” Dmitry Muratov. This, for me, speaks to one of the very things I have struggled with as a journalist, whether or not to also be an activist in a sense and speak out about injustices on a personal level. What has always felt right in my heart and head is to do both of those things, but also still write honest and ethical pieces, so that is what I go with.

For me, Donald Trump’s presidency was far too much insanity, manipulation, tyranny, and ignitor of hatred. The article in our reading regarding the timeline is just one example of such injustices. Trump himself was vocal about his friendship with Vladimir Putin and his appreciation of Putin’s philosophies. We’ve come closer to terror than we’ve collectively realized, I think.

For the last part of this writing piece, I’ll aim to answer the question posed “what we can do — as journalists, as media consumers and as citizens — to further a liberatory ethics quest of the sort that Dussel propounds.”

To fellow journalists and myself: Hold yourself accountable to your biases but don’t let me prevent you from examining all things with a close eye. Prioritize the interests of the things that keep this world in balance (which is broad but hopefully understandable through a hopefully inherent sense of “good”). Call for people to do whatever they so choose as long as they are not hurting anyone or anything in a physical, mental or emotional way. Be strong and peaceful. Advocate for equity and ethical treatment of all people and all aspects of nature.

To media consumers and all citizens: Too many mass experiments throughout society have unequivocally shown that humans are easily influenced. Misogyny, racism, acceptance of tyranny, human rights services like health care and education, smoking, fashion, food, and much much more are examples of ulterior motives being packaged in a way that both serves and takes, or worse, just takes in the most insidious of ways. Be aware of this. Fact check to the best of your abilities. Be conscious of the outlets you are supporting not just by means of finances but also viewership. 

Admittedly, the more I write on this topic the more despair I feel. At times it seems that humanity has lost its way, but when I speak with some people person to person, I see the glimmers of light around me and I am hopeful. Maybe also I am a fool.

Here’s how you can show your support for press freedom and the right to know

https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/how-to-protect-and-enhance-freedom-of-expression

^^^^^^^^ this above link is an article straight from George W. Bush’s Presidential Center website. I think it’s worth comparing this article to the one from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The aspect of our readings from ONA Ethics that most piqued my interest this week, while it was all interesting, is that of the topic on confidential sources. In the two publications I have had more extensive experience in, El Leñador News and Osprey Magazine, using a confidential source is not something that is permitted unless there is an extremely extenuating circumstance. I have often wondered, if a situation were to come up, how that would be handled specifically within these organizations, or even more, within other news organizations that I have no experience in. 

In ONA Ethics, they state that “[B]efore a journalist grants confidentiality, you should have a detailed discussion of the source’s reasons for wanting to avoid accountability, which is what happens when you don’t name sources.” This brings up the vital question of the “reasoning” and even deeper, how a journalist is supposed to gauge the value of the source’s reasoning. This question requires its own set of research tools as well as deciding personal and professional limits to your leniency in this topic. 

While there are many reasons a source may want to remain nameless, the only reason that to me seems valid is if a source is trying to protect their safety or wellbeing, i.e., their job, the circles they need to remain in, etc. One point that ONA Ethics brings up regarding this practice, however, is to only grant these leniencies if the person who wants anonymity is in a vulnerable position, not a powerful one. Powerful people have been known to use information that they have given unnamed to spread slander and misinformation. 

Another important factor to consider is that in some states there are no laws to protect confidential sources. This becomes a higher risk factor if you are reporting on sensitive information that has legal implications. If you, as a journalist, try to withhold the information you received from said source, you could be fined or taken to jail. “It’s also worth noting that not every story based on confidential sources presents the threat of going to jail,” ONA Ethics says.

Before considering using a confidential source that can be more difficult to fact-check, it is important to determine whether a source can be trusted. Many individuals have ulterior motives that can include leaking information that somehow benefits them or someone they know or work with. I have never thought of encrypting my email, but this is something that ONA Ethics cites in their writing as a useful tool, which has me thinking. 

Being super specific about the terms of an agreement with a confidential source is paramount. You don’t want there to be any miscommunications that could either destroy trust between you and the source or even worse, you use information from them that is a lie, and it affects your credibility even further as a professional. According to ONA Ethics, “[J]ournalists should be especially reluctant to quote a spokesperson without using her name.” “A rare exception might be when a spokesperson is giving you information that doesn’t relate directly to the official or organization she represents.”

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://www.npr.org/ethics#1-honesty-in-reporting

https://nppa.org/resources/code-ethics

I previously wrote about this exact topic in another class taught by the wonderful Deidre, so I am going to take this opportunity to expand on my thoughts from a few months ago. Since that original introduction to the consolidation of media ownership my perspective on the media as a whole, and also where I may potentially feel comfortable working as a journalist in the future, has changed a lot. Before I knew better, I grew up with the assumption that cable news was all lies and fluff, and that people who watch cable news are self-proclaimed “sheeple” who either know they are digesting substanceless media or are too ignorant to realize. 

As I grew through learning, it began to become more apparent that, as with everything, it is much more complex than that, and there are deeper systemic issues behind why we have ended up in the state we are today with media. There is a tidal wave of varying and often contrasting information being presented on a carefully crafted platter meant to appeal to specific groups within the sea of diversity. While these messages come across differently depending on who they cater to, and are at times actually promoting different ideas, oftentimes the message is subliminally promoting the same end-all goal in different ways for easier digestion depending on your beliefs, political party, demographic, race, ethnicity, etc.

“If an individual is not taught to be aware of the underlying factors that come into play with media and are not adept in media literacy there is a great concern that their minds will be toyed with, without them even knowing,” I said in my last post. These “underlying factors” I mentioned are the narratives being pushed by state and national agencies, as well as a myriad of industries, for their benefit. But that is masked by reasoning that is said to benefit the people or nature or whatever they can spin. I sound much more radical here than I did before, I suppose, but the fact is it’s the truth. A fact-checkable truth that can be proven if one is only willing to sort through endless documents and reports and take apart the rhetoric being used, which “they” know, most people won’t do. 

To be honest I don’t even know what to do in terms of the issues surrounding media ownership. When I take a good long hard look at the system the conclusion that I come to every single mind is that it has to be entirely rewritten. The issue with that is that there are so many different opinions and ideas I don’t know how any consensus would be made. It almost seems like humans are not yet evolved enough to tackle such a question or such a task. There has been so much harm that has been enacted in so many different ways I feel super defeated when I think about it. Even the people we think are fighting for the right thing like conservationists have done things like ignore Indigenous knowledge and rights. Left-wing politicians mask consumerist and monetarily based motives under the guise of environmental saviorism. Right-wing politicians adopt rhetoric that makes their argument sound more modern and environmentally friendly.

“When Mother Nature blesses us with rain, we need to save the water, instead of dumping it into the ocean,” Assemblymember Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) wrote in a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

I start getting lost in a sea of contrasting opinions and narratives being pushed with such powerful and aggressive rhetoric, that to discern if it’s genuine, would take more time than I have to trace the narrative back to its origin and uncover the money trail. When it comes to media, it is just as challenging. At the very least, it is a start to “find out who owns your local stations and bear that and mind when you watch,” John Oliver said. 

Everything is always so heavy when you are trying to make a difference because the world is intense. It’s good to know information AND it is incredibly taxing and exhausting to constantly be fighting the good fight for ethical reporting that feels like you are running blindly through an active minefield. I appreciate Carlos Holguin’s perspective about how he learned from journalist Dave Silverbrand, that news doesn’t have to be a big story every time. The moments in between are just as important and are also where I’d argue peace is found. 

https://credibilitycoalition.org/credcatalog/project/media-ownership-monitor/

https://www.californiasalmon.org

https://www.survivalinternational.org/conservation

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-20/anger-flares-as-california-stormwater-washes-out-to-sea

Aristotle thought a lot about what it takes to be the best version of ourselves. His conclusion was that virtue is the predominant trait needed to “do the right thing.” Virtue is considered practical wisdom that is a learned trait, allowing a person to always know what to say, diffuse tense situations, deliver difficult news with grace, be confident without being arrogant, be brave without being reckless, and be generous without being extravagant.

Aristotle said that “having virtue just means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount, toward the right people.” This is, in every regard, a vague statement, but being good is not something that should need to be spelled out. The idea of goodness being found in the middle ground of any action, behavior, thought or feeling is an idea that has been talked about by many scholars, philosophers, and those with wisdom. The novel Siddhartha references this same thought process, as well as The Four Agreements, as two excellent examples of the salience of balance. 

The vice of excess and the vice of deficiency, referenced by Aristotle, are the two extremes that are easily and often displayed in human behavior. The ability to find the “golden middle ground,” i.e., balance, is the key to living a virtuous life because the “right” action always seems to be at the midpoint between the two extremes. 

I had never before heard of the word Eudaimonia but am delighted to now know it and work to understand it. The word’s meaning encompasses a life well lived, human flourishing, a life of striving, and the idea that you are never done improving. This vast and complex meaning largely speaks to the overall idea of a growth mindset. Thomas Aquinas had a similar understanding, though his theory came through a religious lens. Aristotle influenced Aquinas’s understanding of virtue and although Aquinas viewed virtue as a trait bestowed to humans by God, the substance of the theory is largely the same, which is quite intriguing. 

In regard to the film Do the Right Thing, the main thing that intrigued me and caused me to further consider the thoughts and theories of Aquinas and Aristotle was that everyone in the film seemed to live in the extreme. There is a clear lack of balance in people’s lives. This observation caused me to think about the intention of that in the film. I wonder if that trait of the film, with respect to the different environments portrayed in the film, was meant to display how hectic environments and hate can disrupt the possibility of balance. 

Most of the actions and communication from characters like Mook, Pino, Vino, Tina, Sal, and others are on the extreme of excess. To me, Da Mayor most represents the middle ground, or at times the extreme of deficiency. One scene that struck me most in the film was when Da Mayor gave money to a kid to buy him a beer. Upon seeing that, a group of older folks come over and begin saying disrespectful things to him. I

In a striking quote, Da Mayor tells them that “unless you done stood in the door, listened to your five hungry children crying for bread, and you can’t do a damn thing about it. Your woman standing there, you can’t even look her in the eye. Unless you done that, you don’t know me, my pain, my hurt, my feelings. You don’t know shit! Don’t call me bum don’t call me drunk. You ain’t got the sense that God gave a billy goat. Don’t call me nothing. It’s disrespectful. I know your mamas and your papas raised you better.” 

The man he was talking to disregards everything he says and states “I don’t respect nobody that don’t respect themselves.” To him, he saw Da Mayor as passive to such an extent he wouldn’t even help his own family, but he himself is acting on the other extreme of excess. This interaction, to me, is a representation of how either extreme is destructive, and a virtuous life can only be found through balance.