Fake & Phony

            Controversy arose Monday when The Associated Press and The Seattle Times, along with the rest of America, learned of a fake news story and site created by the FBI in 2007 to aid in their investigation of a bomb threat suspect. Police called on the FBI for help in June 07 after repeated threats. They sent an email with the link of a fake AP story on a fake Seattle Times webpage to the suspect. The link contained software that gave the FBI the suspect’s location. He was arrested soon after.

            So what’s the big deal? The Associated Press is pretty upset that the FBI used their name and Kathy Best, Seattle Times editor had a few things to say about the matter.

            "Not only does that cross a line, it erases it. Our reputation and our ability to do our job as a government watchdog are based on trust. Nothing is more fundamental to that trust than our independence — from law enforcement, from government, from corporations and from all other special interests. The FBI's actions, taken without our knowledge, traded on our reputation and put it at peril.”

           

            AP and Seattle Times argue this broke the trust the government and the media share but I question that supposed trust. Since stories like Watergate the media has always sought out a scandal.  I wouldn’t exactly call that trust. I also can’t seem to understand how this shed a bad light on AP or Seattle Times. Yes, their names were used without permission but what damage was done to their reputation?

            The FBI stated they will only use this technique in difficult situations when other sources have been exhausted. The only issue I have with this is privacy. How far will the FBI go to catch a suspect? Maybe what AP and Seattle Times are really so upset about is a lack of respect.

She's back

Monica Lewinsky has officially entered the realm of social media. Just 4 days ago, Ms. Lewinsky joined Twitter. Her first tweet? "#HereWeGo". Seems fitting. Not that anyone needs a refresher but Monica Lewinsky is best known as a former White House intern who had an affair with President Bill Clinton in 1995.

In the past, Lewinsky has tried very hard to keep out of the public eye but after joining twitter and her recent essay for Vanity Fair, this may be changing. Her new calling? To end "Cyber Bullying". In fact, Monica Lewinsky is calling herself "Patient Zero" for cyber bullying.

"There was no Facebook, Twitter or Instagram back then," she said. "But there were gossip, news and entertainment websites replete with comment sections and emails which could be forwarded. ..a viral phenomenon that, you could argue, was the first moment of truly 'social media'."

She has a point and finding a way to take a humiliating experience and turn it into a helpful one deserves some credit. The real question is, how will her re-entry into public life be viewed by others? By the media? And at such a critical time...with the Presidential election in 2016 and Hillary Clinton as a serious candidate. How will Lewinsky conduct herself during the election? Will she tweet about it or avoid the subject? Personally, I think her decision to "reemerge" isn't a bad one, but the time she chose seems questionable at best. And she certainly hasn't wasted anytime, just last week she made more than negative remarks about how the White House ruined her in order to protect President Clinton when the affair went public. No offense Ms, Lewinsky, but what did you expect them to do?

Even though Lewinsky claims her re-entry into public life is all for the better, I can't help feeling bad for Hillary Clinton. She's back after 16 years, and there's no way the media is going to  settle for allowing Monica Lewinsky to simply talk about cyber bullying. You can bet, they'll be talk of the affair. Will this hurt Hillary Clinton in the election or will voters feel how I do and sympathize with her?

Too Close for Comfort

    There has always been a constant debate over closing our borders for various reasons: Illegal immigrants, criminals, children. Each side had a valid argument for or against it. The most recent reason? Ebola. 

         The first person in the U.S. was diagnosed with Ebola, and unfortunately passed away Wednesday but there have been over 4,000 cases in West Africa which has spurred the issue of closing the U.S./Mexico border. Mike Huckabee, Arkansas' former governor even made a statement saying "We've seen our borders routinely ignored. So if someone with Ebola really wants to come to the U.S. just get to Mexico and walk right in." Even U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown who has previously promoted border control said that Ebola "..underscores the need to secure our borders." The problem most fear, is that someone from Latin America or elsewhere will become infected and flee to the U.S. 

         The media and most officials have covered the Ebola outbreak in such a way that some have called into question. With every report there is always the same message, "the healthcare professionals in the U.S. are more than capable of handling this", "we have everything under control", "it's not going to spread widely in the U.S." etc.          Now obviously the goal is to avoid panic and chaos but when people begin to hear stories from other sources, even if they are unreliable, that seem to contradict what the media is saying, we begin to fear they aren't telling us the whole truth. Whether or not this is a rational fear to have is beside the point. This is not to say that every media outlet is reporting in this style. In fact CNN and Huffington Post both have reports about border control. The real problem does not lie with the media but with the timeliness and efficiency of our government.

          My biggest question is, even if we do have everything under control, why wouldn't we do everything we could to stop this outbreak in its tracks, even if it might be considered "overkill". People have seriously criticized the Democratic Party along with our President because the reasoning against closing our borders is just plain ridiculous. They want everyone to feel included. This means going as far as eliminating quarantines. Supposedly checking the temperatures of passengers at airports flying in and out of the U.S. should be enough to keep us safe. Am I the only one finding this a bit unsettling?

    In my opinion there should be no debate on this issue. There just isn’t a valid enough reason against closing borders. We’re not trying to exclude people…we’re trying to keep Americans safe and if that hurts some feelings so be it.