202006733caic2122

[202006733caic2122]

Book Banning: Is it justified?

The American School system is no stranger to criticism and the controversy surrounding banned books is no exception.  Haywood County School in North Carolina recently came under fire for the removal of the novel ‘Dear Martin’ by Nic Stone from the 10th grade English Class.

‘Dear Martin’ follows the journey of Ivy League candidate, Justyce, and his interactions as he attempts to understand the world around him by writing a journal to Martin Luther King and  considers racial profiling and life as a black teenager.

The Superintendent, Bill Nolte, removed the book from the school’s curriculum only hours after receiving a single complaint from a parent citing “explicit language” as the reason for concern despite not having read the book himself.  Nolte had previously made “anti-Black” posts on Facebook, didn't consult with the teacher of the class before making the decision, nor was the complaint in line with school policies.  Following criticism, Nolte defended his decision by saying that “the intended educational message or purpose of the book was being diminished by the way it was, by the amount of profanity and innuendo”.   He also claimed giving the book to 10th graders violated the “age of consent” given that they were still teenagers.  The book was written for 14 and older and those reading the book would have been at least 15.

The question ends up being, was language the real reason for banning the book?  I for one am looking forward to reading it and judging for myself.

[202006733caic2122]

“I drew my red line too late”: Beth Fukumoto the first Republican to change sides

Heading to Washington DC in June of 2013, Beth Fukutomo had one thought before entering the Republican Committee headquarters, words that she had rehearsed over and over- “we are committed to electing candidates who reflect the full diversity of our nation.”  Coming from her home state of Hawaii she was there to announce a $6 million investment by the Republican party to support female and candidates of colour at a state level.  For Fukotomo, this was a reflection of the party she wanted to help build.

Beth Fukumoto, now 38, served as the youngest minority leader of the Hawaiian House of Representatives from 2014.  She held this role until January 25th 2017 when she was voted out of her role by all but one of her colleagues, Representative Cynthia Thielen, for comments she had made criticising President Trump at the Honolulu Women’s March just four days prior.  It was later announced by her successor, Representative Andria Tupola, that there had been discussions about removing her from the role for two years and the decision was not influenced by her comments at the march.

This claim seems hard to believe given the timing of her removal, it seems too convenient to be a coincidence.  Tupola rejected many of Fukumoto’s claims of insults at the Republican convention which are not the words of someone who respects their predecessor regardless of a difference of opinions.  If there was discussion about replacing Fukumoto two years prior, her lack of knowledge towards this is surprising.  I would expect that the leader of the party would be aware of people considering having her removed from her position.

During her speech in Honolulu, Fukumoto discussed how her eight-year-old niece had watched at the Republican Party convention as a room full of people “tossed insults and booed me” because she was refusing to support Donald Trump as the party’s nominee and said she “thought his remarks were racist and sexist”.  Fukumoto also explained how she had told her niece afterwards the truth about the derogatory words being thrown her way because “little kids should know the difference between right and wrong”.

There is something to be said for an Asian-American woman from Hawaii calling out the Presidential nominee as racist and sexist.  The world of politics, specifically the Republican party, is still overwhelmingly filled by white middle-class men who seem to deny such problems in the world but to have someone who has experienced these issues directly calling President Trump out for it, it makes it harder for them to ignore.

Hawaii is largely unique as a state in comparison to the mainland United States because the islands were the final state to be admitted into the union in 1959 following nearly a hundred years of turmoil, largely caused by white businessmen who wanted to use the land for their own benefit without consideration for the native people.  This is an attitude that remains to this day, with dismissal for the native peoples, their religion and important rituals seem unimportant to the standard white American, much like colonial Americans disregarded the native tribes of the mainland. 

As proven by Barack Obama’s time in office and the conspiracy theory that he was not an American citizen despite providing his birth certificate and birthplace of Hawaii, the attitudes towards Hawaii by some of mainland America is as if it was a foreign country, not a state.

Following her public criticism of the President, within just 24 hours of the march, she was already hearing “rumblings” of people trying to have her removed as minority leader, including calls from colleagues within the House to meet and calls for her to resign.  According to Wayne Yoshioka, of Hawaii Public radio, her Republican colleagues were trying to remove her “because she participated in a women’s march against the Trump presidency.” 

Fellow Republican Representative, Bob McDermott, criticised Fukumoto during the House assembly by suggesting that she had a high level of responsibility and was no longer speaking for just herself.  In his opinion, all she did was attack the party but he was cut off before he could continue to give other members a negative motive. 

The only person who chose to keep Fukumoto as minority leader, Representative Cynthis Thielen, outwardly supported her on the House floor, suggesting Fukumoto as “the face of Republicanism as it should be, but never will.”

Fukumoto was told by her colleagues in the Hawaiian House of Representatives that she would be able to stay in her leadership position if she became “committed to not have a dispute with our president” for the remainder of his time in office.  In her speech to her colleagues after being voted out of her position she said that she wasn’t willing to do that because she believed that their commitment should instead be to working as people to “criticise power when power is wrong.”

After being removed from her role as minority leader in late January, Fukumoto spoke to NBC in February about what had happened including why speaking at the women’s march was so important to her.  She explained that many young children had watched the election in 2016 who had left “believing that you can bully people and still win”.  Her main reason during the speech itself was that “it’s our jobs to make sure they watch us fight back” against the victory of someone filled with anger and hate towards so many people.  The emphasis was on getting people involved from the ground up but to “do it with kindness”.  What was most important to Fukumoto is that everyone treats each other with the respect they deserve regardless of their affiliations and who they voted for.

In her interview with NBC, Fukumoto discussed the fact that she disagreed with the direction that the Republican party was going under President Trump and the influence of his administration, calling it a “punishing descent”.  Despite this being the call out that removed her from leadership, she has previously clashed with other party members, once being accused of not being a true Republican because “my tone or stature is not oppositional enough.”

In March of 2017, Beth Fukumoto announced her resignation from the Republican party alongside her intentions to join the Democratic party should they accept her.  The decision was largely based on the reaction of her colleagues following the women’s march which is not unsurprising.  Who would want to remain part of a party that ousted you for opinions and expressing thoughts about something you were passionate about?  She explained that there was no longer a place for her in the Republican party and it was not something she could be a part of anymore.

When speaking to Time following this announcement, she made it clear her resignation was not her departure from politics.  She expressed her concerns for the changing climate of the Republican party both nation and statewide.  Fukumoto initially hoped that they could turn it around with Hawaii being such a diverse state, explaining that the Republican implemented travel bans won’t stop demographics within the country from changing.  She believed that Hawaii “could create a party that actually listened to minority voices” but it became clear to her that there just wasn’t a hope for change.  The party was quickly becoming out of touch with the Democratic majority within Hawaii and as a result she decided to resign.

Once again, Fukumoto explained her reasoning for attending the Honolulu women’s march and how important it was to speak out, especially for the benefit of young people who already saw the President as a bully.  She discussed that the key message she wanted to deliver was that “kindness and respect should always win” irrespective of who you may vote for.  Her belief is that women should start demanding respect from politicians, at the least, which is quite frankly the bare minimum and something that women should already receive from people representing them but are disappointingly not.  Although why would politicians treat women with respect when their leader is a man who is so blatantly sexist?

Furthermore, Fukumoto explained to Time the dynamics of a state House where the majority of Republicans were women.  She praises Cynthia Thielen for always standing up for what was right in the House.  Interestingly, Fukumoto explains that behind closed doors some of her colleagues have told her to “just learn to deal better with men” and to feed their egos.  This distinctly highlights the difference of opinions in how to deal with sexism within politics.  Most of her colleagues aimed to keep their heads down but Fukumoto and Representative Thielen constantly confronted it.

When asked how political parties can address sexism from within, Fukumoto suggested more women in leadership positions, having seen a difference in how men treated women after a woman was appointed to the finance chair.  She also cited an incident where a colleague, unnamed, had suggested that she was “directionless” because of her divorce and that if he was unhappy with her, he would scold her like a child.  Another, also nameless, colleague talked about being the one who “discovered” her when it is quite clear that she is successful because of her own hard work to get elected into the house.  It’s no wonder that she chose to leave the party when her colleagues, of whom she was leading, treated her like a child to be chastised.

In June of 2017 the Democratic Party in Hawaii voted to accept Beth Fukumoto.  Most of her constituents were supportive of her move to the party with 76% supporting the move and the feedback from around the country when it was announced was largely positive.  Many thanked her for voicing publicly what many people were already feeling.  This move made her the first elected official to move from the Republican party to the Democrats where she then served as the executive director of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

In 2018, Fukumoto ran for the open seat in the United States House of Representatives in Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District.  Former Congressman Ed Case won and she finished fifth with 6.3% of the votes.  She was also included in Business Insider’s “8 of the most influential millennial women in US politics.”  Fukumoto was also included in Apolitical’s 2018 list of “The World’s most influential young people in government”.

After spending the past decade in politics, Fukumoto spent a year in 2020 at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government writing and studying.  This is in addition to a Bachelor's degree in American Studies with a minor in sociology and a Masters degree in English from Georgetown University.  She also spends her time speaking about the potential future of American Democracy and partisan politics as a fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation.

Since her time at the Harvard Kennedy school, Fukumoto has spent her time writing and speaking about the futures of women in power and public leadership.  She also helps to train individuals who are new to the world of politics and social movements.

In August of 2020, Fukumoto published an opinion piece in the Washington Post discussing her experiences in the Republican party, her hopes and why she ultimately chose to leave for the Democrats.  An important line that sticks out is Fukumoto’s admission that “I drew my red line too late” having made regrettable decisions in the house and not questioned things such as laws that were not designed to protect voters simply because she didn’t have the courage.

Written pre-election, Fukumoto makes the assessment that the dissection the party will need following the 2020 presidential election will make the one in 2012 seem small.  The 2012 report warned that the Republican party would continue to lose elections if they didn’t make changes.

The Republican party she was working to build was one that had a vision of “growth and opportunity” where she had been promised diversity and a chance to “reimagine the foundation” of the party as it was.  She mentions the horror of Donald Trump admitting he may have supported Japanese American internment during the Second World War and speaking out about it.  

In the end, Fukumoto’s message to the Republicans is that they must decide where to draw their red line and decide at what point it is too much.  

If it wasn’t children in cages at the borders or ignorance to the severity of coronavirus which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans, what would it be?  At what point will the Republicans wake up and realise that the path Trump is leading them down is one of no return?  It certainly doesn’t seem that it was after the 2020 presidential election with demands of fraudulent voting came through in their thousands.  

Beth Fukumoto is the representation of what a Republican in the changing world of America should look like.  She is looking forward to the future, ready to accept the new diverse world and build a more compassionate nation for everyone.    She recognised when she had made mistakes, mistakes she recognises that will stay with her, but she has also stood firm with her own beliefs, refusing to be swayed to another opinion that she cannot support.  

If the Republican party all looked a little bit more like Beth Fukumoto, then perhaps we wouldn’t have seen President Trump in power at all, or at least his impeachment may have been successful.  In a political landscape defined by his disruptive presidency, America needs more people like Fukumoto who will speak out and stand strong against the criticism. 

[202006733caic2122]

A White House Christmas falls on deaf ears

At the end of another hard year for the American population, the time-honoured tradition of the First Lady decorating the White House for Christmas is upon us and it demonstrates the true capitalist nature of the country.

Taking 100 hundred volunteers roughly a week to construct and costing $139,000 with a further $171,000 for the live event, the whole event seems the definition of overkill.  The theme this year being ‘gifts from the heart’ with each room having a sub theme.  After nearly 2 years of COVID-19 wreaking havoc across the country, having killed 800,000 people, the display seems somewhat insensitive to those who have lost so much and been struggling in an economy with the highest rate of inflation since 1982.  

With all these things considered, it is not surprising that people have taken to the internet to voice their unhappiness with the situation with one twitter user pointing out that the decorations cost ‘3-4 people’s total yearly income’.  The criticism seems more than valid, especially considering it was paid for using tax dollars.

The good intention seems to be there in the excessive displays, the East Landing tree honouring service men and women who have died, but it has seemingly fallen on deaf ears for the American population.

After such economic and mental hardship caused by the past 2 years, I wonder whether this tradition should have been abandoned altogether.  Should the First Family take a subdued approach in solidarity with the rest of America?

[202006733caic2122]

It’s really interesting to consider the involvement of the government and trusted institutions such as the police in covering up evidence and whether that impacts the public’s perhaps already distorted view of them.  Do you think that there should be a further investigation into the killers and will it be possible to find them so long after the assassination?

Did the FBI Kill Malcolm X?

The exoneration of Muhammed Aziz and Khalil Islam from their conviction of the murder of Malcolm X was long overdue. Both men served over 20 years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit in a complete failure of the American justice system.

New evidence from their second trial claims to show that the NYPD and FBI may have had a role in the assassination and the framing of Aziz and Islam.

For example, one NYPD officer claimed he was pressured into luring members of Malcolm X’s security team into committing crimes just a few days before the assassination. Consequently, they were unable to attend the event Malcolm X was killed at, making his assassination easier. Also, new documents claim to show that eyewitness testimonies against Aziz and Islam came from FBI informants claiming to see Aziz and Islam during the assassination when, in reality, Aziz was at home recovering from wounds in both legs.

So, did the FBI and NYPD conspire to kill Malcolm X and frame Aziz and Islam?

Not according to a recent enquiry which “found no evidence that the police or FBI conspired to kill Malcolm X”. Although, I think that Malcolm X’s killing was convenient as he was viewed as dangerous due to his views on racial issues and was under surveillance at the time of his death and the botched investigation certainly raises a lot of questions about their role in the trial as well as in the death of Malcolm X.

[202006733caic2122]

do you think that the Netflix documentary was one of the most important things that prompted the investigation and did it bring the case into the eyes of the public more than it would have been otherwise?

All’s Fair in Truth and Justice?

After a half-century effort to clear their names, both Muhammad Aziz and the late Khali Islam also known as Norman 3X Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson have been exonerated from their wrongful conviction in 1965/66 for the assassination of Black Civil Rights leader and activist Malcolm X on February 21st, 1965.

Among the three men who were accused, only one, Mujahid Abdul Halim, admitted his guilt in playing a role in the murder and even further confirmed that neither Aziz nor Islam were involved.

It has been revealed through recent investigation after their case was re-evaluated that evidence; that would have helped the defendants, from the original case and trial in 1965/66 was withheld by authorities. The decision to re-evaluate was conducted by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. due to many reasons, on of which was the 2020 Netflix documentary “Who killed Malcolm X”, which arose many questions and doubts on the ‘fairness of the convictions.’

Prosecutor’s notes and FBI documents were amongst the evidence that would have indicated the innocence of these men. Most of which had not been disclosed to the defence in the original case, prompting a receival of an unfair trial.

Mr Aziz stated that he did not “need a court, prosecutors or a piece of paper to tell me I am innocent” and further called his conviction “the result of a process that was corrupt to its core – one that is all too familiar” even today.

[202006733caic2122]

Malcom X: The truth will out?

55 years after the original conviction of Khalil Islam and Muhammad Aziz, in the same courthouse they were originally convicted of the murder of Malcom X in, the two men were finally exonerated for a crime they had spent decades maintaining their innocence of.  Despite the burst of applause from the courtroom upon the convictions being thrown out, the day was “bittersweet” for those who had felt the effects of the prosecution in 1966.

Although two innocent men finally have the result they’ve been searching for, the 22 month investigation was unable to provide an alternative theory as to who was responsible for Malcom X’s assassination.  This overturning of the original conviction has left more questions that it provided answers.  With the discovery of the FBI’s involvement in suppressing evidence proving the men’s innocence, at least partly on the orders of former director, J. Edgar Hoover, the question remains why did this happen?  As their lawyer, Deborah Francis says, “this was a product of extreme and gross official misconduct.”  The co-founder of the Innocence project also suggests that if the trial had been conducted effectively, it could have changed the history of civil rights in America.

With no evidence to support the widely suggested conspiracy theory that the assassination was carried about by the government, Malcolm X’s daughter is demanding that the true killer be found and brought to justice.  With so much time having passed since that day but with so much more access to evidence, will they be found?

[202006733caic2122]

I think it’s interesting to see a post-Trump presidency Republican not strongly associate themselves with Trump.  I wonder if perhaps some of the party is moving away from how he did politics to create a new image of the party?

“Trump. Just dressed up as Jeb Bush” - Glenn Youngkin, MAGA policies without the Trump personality

Glenn Youngkin’s political career thus far could be summarized as reflecting the success of another contemporary Republican figure, President Donald Trump, a political newcomer with a history in business overturning a seasoned politician against the odds. Considering this, it may be worthwhile to compare how Youngkin attained his victory compared to the infamously brazen attitude that helped lead to the election of the former President.

It’s interesting to consider that Youngkin distanced himself from Trump, despite being described by some as “Trump. He’s just dressed up as Jeb Bush”. On his campaign trail not once was he seen with the former President, who publicly endorsed his campaign (and claimed credit for his win). For Youngkin, the attempt to stay outside of the shadow of the figurehead of contemporary American conservatism whilst maintaining the MAGA values was an incredibly difficult balancing act – and one that evidently paid off for the Governor-elect.

The public image of Glenn Youngkin when compared with Donald Trump’s is another point of difference between the two, with Trump’s personal life being broadcast to the world for decades, from affairs and wives to book deals and becoming a pop culture icon (see American Psycho’s constant references, or even appearing in the Home Alone 2). Youngkin has lived life relatively free from the public eye, a Christian with a wife and four children. Is it fair to argue that this divorce between Trump’s policies and personality is the model for aspiring surfers of “the red wave” of 2021 Republicanism?

[202006733caic2122]

It is interesting to consider the increase of businessmen entering high level politics, mainly on the Republican side, especially in the midst of the pandemic where the economy has been so affected.  Do you think that may be something that affects the decision to vote them in?

From Stocks to Approval Ratings: Glenn Youngkin and Other Businessmen in Government

On the 3rd of November 2021, inexperienced Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin was voted Governor of Virginia. He comes from a commercial background, making him yet another businessman who is trying his hand at politics. This is nothing new – American politics has always involved these figures, ranging from low-level politicians right the way up to presidency. The United States has, in fact, had ‘multiple presidents’ with this background – ranging from Warren Harding (newspaper business) to Jimmy Carter (peanut farmer) and Donald Trump (real estate).

On the surface, businessmen may not seem illogical candidates for government roles. Additionally, some voters may worry about a businessman’s ability to cater to the majority when they are used to benefitting themselves. However, the nature of business arguably trains a person to handle a position in public office. ‘They come from an ecosystem that is driven by urgency to produce measurable results’,as well as the need to satisfy their shareholders, meaning they are used to acting in other people’s interests. Equally, they can effectively fund their campaigns.

Youngkin’s victory proves people focus on ‘issues related to the economy’. Much of his policies were focused on economic issues – these included promises for ‘better-paying jobs, raising salaries for teachers and law enforcement, cutting inflation and eliminating grocery tax’ – hardly surprising for a Republican and businessman. Youngkin, like any businessman, was able to sell a product – in this case himself – to an audience. His experience in commerce allowed him to see what people wanted and play upon that.

[202006733caic2122]

Victory for vaccination freedom in Virginia

It may be interesting to observe the success or failure of Youngkin’s attempts to control the spread of COVID-19 through Virginia for ‘one’s own rights’ instead of as an obligation to the community itself.

Referred to as a “Trump Wannabe” by Terry McAuliffe, his democratic opposition, recently elected Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin has a unique take on COVID-19 vaccinations in a time where the pandemic is at the forefront of every campaign.  Although double vaccinated himself, Youngkin is opposed to mandating vaccinations in Virginia.

In a September advert, Youngkin urged people to join him in getting vaccinated but that it was “your own choice and I respect that”.  His belief is that education and health care workers should not be forced to have Covid vaccinations as those who are opposed to it would be forced out of work and “to make their life difficult” is no way to serve Virginians.  It is no surprise given his stance on free choice with vaccination, that Youngkin is expected to remove mask mandates alongside vaccine mandates state-wide.  

Consistently through their campaigns, McAuliffe has referred to Youngkin as an anti-vaxxer which is arguably an unfair statement to make.  An anti-vaxxer is someone opposed to “the use of vaccines or regulations” and Youngkin alongside his family have all been vaccinated against COVID-19 and he supports other mandatory vaccinations for children such as measles, stating that the “data associated with those vaccines” is something different to the data relating to Covid vaccinations.

[202006733caic2122]

Colin Powell and the My Lai Massacre: cover up or another cog in the system?

Awarded both the purple heart and the bronze star, four star US Army general Colin Powell died from Covid-related complications in October 2021.  His career as the first black secretary of state is one worthy of respect but his early military career is one shrouded by accusations and cover up claims.

In November of 1968, at the time, Major Powell opened a letter for the general in charge of the war effort from a Vietnam veteran, accusing the Army of war crimes.  This arrived 8 months after the My Lai Massacre in which up to 500 hundred villagers were killed.  The official story was that 128 Viet Cong soldiers had died and 3 weapons seized, a story Powell repeated instead of the facts he knew.  The letter was dismissed by superiors and Powell reported that it was unfortunate the ‘allegations’ were not brought to the “immediate superiors” and that “relations between American soldiers and Vietnamese people were excellent”.

Although his part in the cover up was small, it was unsurprising according to historian Jefferey Matthews.  “His superiors had clearly set the example,” he wrote, and Powell’s “small but unhesitating contribution” reflected this.  

In 1970 the details of the massacre were finally made public and Powell was accused of ‘whitewashing’ the disaster.

Despite this, Colin Powell has had a long and successful career in the eyes of the public, largely unaffected by the tragedy.  Would this have been the case if Powell hadn’t gone along with the story he was fed?

[202006733caic2122]

Is there still stigma around mental health in 2021?  Especially in celebrities being in such prominent view?  Perhaps a dismissal of their mental health by the masses because they are famous?

“Grow Up Britney!” The Effect of the Media on Britney Spears’ Conservatorship

The news that Jamie Spears had been removed as Britney Spears’ Conservator was a celebratory occasion among her fans and much of the feminist community. But with this new development comes an eye-opening exposé of how the media attacked Spears’ character, even going so far as to criticise her parenting skills.

“We’re sorry Britney” read an Instagram post by Glamour Magazine, apologising for the role it played in damaging Spears’ reputation. Of course, Glamour Magazine is not the only news outlet that played a hand in tearing down the singer; a New York Times article by Julia Jacobs presents a heinous display of tabloid covers from the 2000′s. The magazines present Spears as wild and uncontrollable, and the first two go so far as to attack her skills as a mother.

This attack of Spears’ character has most certainly had an impact on how the general public view Britney Spears. In some ways, the stories present her as childish and in need of supervision. It is easy to see how the media has influenced her online presence and how she is treated by her fans. One twitter thread about Spears has people questioning her mental health, much like in 2007 following Britney’s famous breakdown. This begs the question, has anything really changed? Women are still objectified within the media; newspapers such as the Daily Mail are notorious for sexualising female celebrities. However, mental health is a much more mainstream and accepted topic than it was in 2007, so there has perhaps been a positive change in how the media handles cases of conservatorship and mental health.

[202006733caic2122]

Celebrity mental health: it’s not for our entertainment

Although it has been more than 10 years since the infamous moment that Britney Spears shaved her head, and it appears the world has begun to break through mental health stigma, it seems we are more obsessed with the private lives of celebrities than ever before.

This is proven by the public involvement via the ‘#freebritney’ movement that took over the internet earlier this year.  This viral hashtag resulted in Spears’ conservatorship being reconsidered and her father has since been removed from the agreement following the abusive and controlling situation described by the pop star.

But the volume of media coverage following the trial so closely begs the question, when does it stop being news and start being an invasion of privacy?  The sensationalization of celebrity’s mental health has exploded over the past few years with everyone feeling the need to give their, most likely, unqualified opinion.  We seem to think that just because these people’s jobs put them in the spotlight, we have a right to judge and consider everything they do.

The reality is, if your neighbour had a mental breakdown, you’d rightfully keep your nose out of it or maybe offer some support.  But as soon as it is someone ‘famous’ everyone wants to have their say.

The line between news and entertainment about celebrities' personal lives has become blurred beyond recognition, and I for one think it’s time we redefine that line with a bright red pen.  We get our privacy, so why shouldn’t they too?

[202006733caic2122]

9/11 through the screen

The events of September 11th 2001 will forever be echoed through the course of history.  Whilst it has been 20 years since that day, the stories of survivors are still being told by those who witnessed the tragedy.  But there will come a time when future generations are taught about it, there will no longer be witnesses alive to tell their stories of the horrors they saw that day.  

When that time comes, it is important that 9/11 does not become another event lost to history through the lack of retelling.  When there is no one left to recount their story, we must turn to other sources to teach our children of that day and I believe that those sources will be the media created to document that day.  Whether that be television or film, these will prove to be vital sources of information to educate future generations.  

One of the most important pieces, I believe, is 102 minutes that changed America, a docu film composed purely of footage captured of 9/11 throughout the short period of time the attacks took place.  It gives the viewer an idea of what it may have been like to have witnessed such a tragedy, although film will never replicate the emotions felt seeing the horror.  

This form of media helps people understand that the attack didn’t just impact those who died, but that the effect was felt throughout New York, America and the world immediately and for years to come.

[202006733caic2122]

Learning Contract

Throughout this module I am looking forward to engaging with a style of writing I have not engaged with before and further developing my own style as a writer.  I hope that I will be able to learn and understand the different styles of journalism and be able to apply them to my own blog throughout.  I aim to do this by engaging with news sources and looking to learn the techniques used for effective articles.  

As a student journalist, I look forward to learning from my peer’s blogs and interacting with them in a new way.  

I am excited to see how the blog turns out under assessment as it allows for more of a voice and individual style throughout the semester to develop and I am interested as to where I may end up as a writer at the end of the module.

It is my hope that I will be able to take the skills I learn through the blog writing process and further them on my own once the module has ended to create my own style as a journalist.