Conflict of Interest.

I came to Ithaca College, essentially, for the Roy H. Park School of Communications - a prestigious institution of higher education that promised an up-to-date, pre-professional education in all forms of journalism.

And unfortunately, that's what I got. However, I never realized what I really wanted or needed as an individual, academically, socially, and personally speaking, before I came to college, so I wasn't aware of this less-than-preferable circumstance of which I am now in the midst. 

The Park School caters to modern standards of journalism which, given the current construction of economics and culture, tend to manifest as corporate-supported media - a kind of commercialized way to tell the news that hides behind the mystical concept of objectivity and dictates culture and conversations (at least to a fairly significant extent).

In fact, according to what I have interpreted from my professors, journalism seems to serve as a calculated art of business - a way to obtain, entertain, and maintain readership that goes beyond serving the public with information and analyses.

And honestly, not to rip on my peers since I love so many of them, but often in my journalism classes, most students do not exhibit any real or authentic devotion toward what goes on in the world. I've met many Park students whose dreams for life consist of big-time anchor deals or best-selling blogs (if that even makes any financially feasible sense at all). And when we do discuss news in my class, most students regurgitate headlines from The New York Times, providing no actual insight, interest, or information whatsoever.

After realizing how limited the scope of global experience and humanity seems to be for many journalism majors and processing a very influential quote from my friend, Shaun, who said quite straightforwardly, "Park teaches you how to do and not how to think," I realized how truly unsatisfying my major was.

Additionally, being the  greedy student I am, I wanted both - thinking and doing - without question. Yes, Park has provided me an outstanding opportunity to utilize new technology and multimedia in hopes of creating an impressive resume down the road. Park also brings in excellent speakers (they're completely based on Park's own preferences and bias, but hey, Huffington next week!!). In general, it's not a bad school for its all intents and purposes. 

But its natural tendency to avoid hard-hitting issues and criticism of what mainstream media really "accomplishes" in this country is alarming. 

Luckily, it's not all bad. Today, my friend and News 1 partner, Norah Sweeney and I went to Diaspora - a store that sells African art in the Commons for a story. The owner touched and enlightened us using his own discoveries and experiences surrounding the relationship and tensions between African and Western cultures, evoking unrealized emotions toward a subject Norah and I had both equally unacknowledged, for the most part, before our interactions with Eldred (the owner).

These are the types of stories that I intend to explore as a writer in the future. I do not know the forum through which my writing will exist (blog, magazine, newspaper, research institute, etc.), but all I know is, I am partially satisfied with keeping my journalism major because I recognize the true satisfaction that can come from it, even if most of the journalism courses I take are only exploited for technological skills and excellent resources.

The Park School isn't bad at what it does - not at all; it's quite good, actually. I just realized how I need to use the Park School for my own personal reasons, which do not fit Park's image of an "ideal journalist," that is, someone who yearns for "fair," "objective" pieces on "something interesting." 


Journalists should have interests and should write about those individual curiosities. They should explore their passions and inform the world what they've learned about such areas of interest, through facts, through analysis, through acknowledgment of bias, subjectivity - all of the rhetorical ingredients that make something that is not necessarily interesting to read, but is, at the very least, worthwhile, consciously self-critical, and independent of any corporate-funded mentality.

Political Prizes: Peace & Obama

Barack Obama's recently award Nobel Peace Prize has accumulated a multitude of lively debate. Most Americans, liberal or conservative, moderate or apathetic, seem very confused with the unpredictable announcement. Accordingly, most of us have been asking, what has our president done to earn this universally prestigious title?

Well nothing really, quite frankly.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to galvanize fears of Communist health care or homosexual terrorists; talk to Dick Morris or Dick Cheney (or any other dicks) if you want to hear why conservative agenda is more than necessary at this time (despite its fundamental inability to promote equality).

No, the real reason Barack Obama has not earned this award stems from the very fact that he is president of the United States, one of the most aggressive, powerful, and culturally imperialistic economic machines governing "democratic capitalism" across the globe.

Obama has indeed utilized diplomatic whiteout to take care of the last administration's undoubtedly tainted actions and explicit failures in foreign policy. But cleaning up after Bush - one of the most deservedly least popular presidents in modern American history - is not representative of praiseworthy conduct.

Yes, Obama's speech in Cairo to the Muslim world, condemnation of Israel's West Bank settlements, and attempt to close torture camps for terrorists are commendable in one way or another.

But Obama has yet to fully close Guantanamo Bay. He has decided preconditions to Israeli-Palestinian talks are unnecessary and supports a "don't ask don't tell policy" regarding Israel's nuclear weapons  (while he continues to ardently criticize Iran's peaceful and unfairly ridiculed attempts at low-uranium enrichment and manages to questionably promise the LGBTQIA community that he will abolish our own DADT). He continues to struggle with the formation of an Afghanistan strategy, probably without the obvious fact that Afghanistan will never be able to develop it its own organic cultural context with the unwelcoming invasion of U.S. troops. 

Also, he lost Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. I don't know why that's a criticism but Rush Limbaugh told me it was. 

The point is, Obama continues to do what American presidents do best - promote inequalities and ethnocentric policies by assuming global responsibility for everything the mainstream media decides to cover. Obama needs to think back to his real ideological roots (roots of which I believe I have some knowledge after reading his autobiography) in order to achieve the peaceful endeavors this award symbolizes. 

Obama should know Israel's military, not just Hamas, needs to be politically admonished. Obama should know Afghanistan is not for our concern and that a public acknowledgement of past wrongdoings in concert with troop removal would probably diminish violence more than any insurgency. Obama should know that peace never arrives with assumptions, arms, ammo, and American hubris. 

Obama should not have this award. 

However, if he uses it as personal and political call to action, like he noted in his speech, we will hopefully see some sort of improvement.

Nevertheless I will never support any American politician receiving such an award as long as he or she operates under the government we know and criticize today.