This lead is good because it is concise and to the point. It is kept to one sentence and gives off specific information that is needed to know to understand what the article is about.

Lead: this is a basic news lead. It gives the facts and information that will be highlighted on in the article further. it is a summary news lead but it does not give off to much information.

This article takes on the narrative of timeliness, impact, conflict, and prominence.

for our sake, Fizz has become a breading ground for rumors and major gossip that is happening across campus. I can easily see why that can lead to cyberbullying, especially if names get out.

I would not be surprised if things like this popped up on Xaviers Fizz. Many students tend to make fun of athletes, especially the baseball team.

I can understand why some people would think that cyberbullying is a problem on this app, but because it is anonymous it is better because people aren't going to know who is posting or publishing something.

it is single university specific. Yik Yak was location based so it would take whoever posted in the closest few miles and show up on your feed. Fizz is more personal because it is just the university and its students.

although it is a professional app, the way that Fizz goes about promoting its app seems almost unprofessional. it's going through routes that students would take, especially students who have little money. But Fizz is a large app and company with millions of dollars, so why is it not using that money to promote on a larger scale or more professionally.

So much promotion being done for the app, but where is the really money coming from? is it just investors and stocks?

isn't this a problem for all social medias, who and what is shared and accessed by other people? The social media apps have the ability to control that, so why is it such a big deal. We saw this happen with Trump on Facebook and Twitter with his account being suspended.

I know of a few students at Xavier who were paid money to promote fizz on their instagrams.

this app is free and there are no ads that I can see when I am on the app, so how does it make money? Is it just from investing?

its very different from other social media apps because of the anonymity

the interesting thing is that Xavier itself does not endorse Fizz. the app popped up recently out of nowhere and students were promoting it to other students through other social media apps like instagram and snapchat.

these apps allow for the users to engage with other users and create their own content that is not regulated, mostly, by the app itself. Instagram, facebook, etc. are just the platforms that are used to connect with students, while fizz is used directly for student-to-student interactions

the use of being anonymous is to be able to say whatever you want without the repercussions of getting bullied or cyber bullied. I also think that it is different at universities rather than high schools where cyber bullying is more frequent.

Very popular social media app that is an anonymous twitter of sorts that can be used for students. It is location based and you can see what people post in a certain area

I have had the fizz team reach out to me through Linkedin, another social media app, and ask if I would apply to the Fizz team for Xavier

we have already seen false rumors being spread through Fizz at Xavier

Fizz is used at Xavier. It is a specific app that is only for Xavier students and it is completely anonymous. It has gained popularity in the past month. It's similar to twitter and yikyak, which was another popular social media used last year.

If you're a journalist for a media outlet from the opposing side with opposing views there is definitely a risk because many people wont like you just based off of where you come from.

the reporters are continuing to risk their lives so to cover the corruption and violence so that the public and locals know and understand what is happening in their areas and homes.

Moral outrage that has turned to offline violence.

Yet, there are many laws that protect Journalists, especially international Journalists from being killed or harmed and imprisoned.

Many journalists are killed because of what they are reporting and what they are saying, and this is the case for smaller media outlets who don't have as much protection.

many are killed by groups that don't like what they are saying

With no electricity, I wonder how hard it is to report on the conflicts, especially with smaller media outlets?

Is this why he continues to report during violence and in very risky and unsafe scenarios? would it be the same if he was in an area that he was not emotionally attached to?

it is a big deal that these journalists sacrifice so much to get this information across

this leaves them at risk because of the intense conflict and hatred between the two states. It also affects them because it is such a local issue. They may have to report about people they know and their families.

Most western countries consider Hamas a terrorist organization so no wonder they would be in more danger than others around the world.

very dangerous job, yet so many do it.

It is an important thing to keep people informed so that they have an understanding of what is happening, especially locals because it could easily affect them.

these media outlets are not solely being destroyed because they are part of the opposing side, in this case it was a French media outlet.

Wondering whether he was taken because he is a journalist or because he is another civilian?

I wonder if the reasons for stopping the spread of media is because the Israelites don't want others to know of what they are doing because they know that it is bad, or because there is valuable information with the spread of media such as their location.

There is obvious danger to all of these journalists and reporters. In this case many aren't necessarily war corespondents.

Media reporters and outlets have been targeted and fired upon in the past by Israelites during similar conflicts. It's not surprising that they would again target media of the opposing side.

From my understanding, the Israelites have been firing on the Gaza Strip while the Hamas have been firing on towns in southeast Israel. I'm confused who is responsible for their deaths.

I'm assuming that these reporters who died were by accident from the Hamas because the Hamas are fighting for the Palestinians, or at least against the Israelites.

written before the recent war in Ukraine and Israel. Most of the technology was the same, but today we have the ability to see reports of news faster and easier, and I wonder if that has made a difference with war corespondents.

gives us a glimpse into what war reporters have to go through along with the actual dangers of being amidst violence and danger.

I would like to look into what it's like for reporters from other countries or from big news organizations that have lots of resources.

I have seen many videos from TikTok of people who are living near the attacks and what has been going on there. The coverage of both credible media like newspapers and first person evidence shows how media is being shown to people across the globe and how news is coming to people.

are they dependent on other sources to get information from inside the strip? or do they have contacts with other newspapers and reporters in Gaza?

At what point is it too much for reporters to report for the public? Would there be any case for them to cease the reporting that they are doing?

I know that reporters for CNN and BBC have the ability to say yes or no to reporting in conflict in the field, but is it the same for this newspaper because the conflict is so widespread?

what kind of infastructure? is this better technology to communicate with others? And how was the communication technology in the past?

again, what other newspapers covered this and how many are covering this in Israel?

not sure why in my head I thought that the newspaper was going to be really small. What other newspapers are similar to this in Israel, or is this the biggest one?

How is the news reporting now during this war different then they news reporting in the past while this conflict has been going on?

The use of technology in this war is obvious. It is being used everywhere. This gives a dystopian feel, and can also cause moral panic. there was already panic when many people thought that there was a nuclear war looming in the future, with mass amounts of technology being used there will be even more panic in war.

goes to show how much the world has changed and how conflict and war has changed since the invention of different kinds of technology

exactly whats happening with Space X. Musk was lending Ukraine these tools a year ago, but now he is refusing them.

although he has lended his satellite terminals and internet to Ukraine and has made deals with the US military. he also has used money from the US and other countries to pay for these terminals.

Space X is a private company, primarily owned by Elon Musk.

communication between people in the war has crossed to public twitter feeds. Very different from what it was like in the past.

a private company, Space X, is providing internet and services to a war torn country and aiding the Ukrainian government, while communicating with the US government, yet they are not a government or military company or organization.

if they were paid by other counties, why does Musk have such a large issue with continuing the funding?

key word is power. Musk has lots of power with the technology that he has created. This is very dystopian because the power does not belong to world leaders anymore, but people who create weapons and resources to help with the war.

this gives the feel of a vey dystopian view. The use of technology in war and how it is affecting many people across the country. It almost feels like a dystopian movie.

is starlink considered an American company? and if so, does that mean that it means that American is interfering in the war?

there is a lot of media convergence happening with this issue. Many things that would have occured differently in the past, are occuring online and in a very public matter.

Why have they decided to shut the satellite down in Ukraine? Why not in other areas or countries that may not need it as much? is it simply to not be included in the war to avoid conflict or is there other reasons that have not been mentioned?

He has previously been directly involved in the war, in this case on Ukraines side.

is this due to money issues, or personal beliefs on Musk's end. In other articles it has touched on that he does not want to contribute to the war because of the consequences.

at first he donated starlink satellites to Ukraine, but now he has essentially turned them off to Ukraine becuase he does not want to be involved in the war. kind of a double standard and hypocritical of him.

the evolution of technology in the past few years has not been used like this in war efforts in the middle east and definitely not before that. the use of satellites directly is a new tool

responding through social media is very interesting. Not only are both countries dependent on technology to succeed in the war, but Musk uses technology and media to give a somewhat press release to the public on his views.

this article feels like moral panic but in the opposite way. The Ukrainians were counting on this satellite to help them in the war, and without it they were unable to succeed in what they needed to do. This caused enormous backlash against Musk and many pleas for him to turn the satellite back on.

How, in this case, Is a man not from either region to define war and how it takes place in a country this he is not in control of or from?

interesting how war has changes so much in the last century. people outside of the actual conflict are able to have a say and word in the war, in this case denying it completely

Newsworthy because of conflict, timeliness, and impact

they are obviously taking a left wing side when they are talking about QAnon, a known right side defender.

king/queen-the best or most important- metaphor for royalty.

including this tells us that this article thinks that Apatow is wrong and incorrect in this thinking.

using the Israel-Palestine conflict in this sentence tells us that this moment is very controversial and includes lost of violence. It also tells us that this is a very serious matter and that it has captured the attention of many people

This headlines shows etreme bias. It tells us that there is a conspiracy here in this story, and that Will Smith is apart of it.

again, this makes it seem like Smith took this too far and was way over the line. They use examples of others who were compliant with jokes against them, and that Smith was the exception.

this continues to make it seem like Smith was the problem because he made the mood change drastically, and that his violence stained the rest of the night

this makes it seem like Smith is the villain

paints Rock as the victim. This tells us that Rock was just doing his job in a peaceful manner, he was not up there to monologue and tell jokes, he was there to present an award.

To include this is to show that Chris Rock was not previously involved in a step to take violence or provoke Will Smith, or that he was at the awards to be a comedian, which is his job and what he focuses on in his acting career.

This shows the relevance and prominence in the narrative. The people involved are very relevant and are shown as such due to the tweet numbers included in this article.

this source went to two different sources for their information, the police and the academy awards themselves.

they said that his actions were not violent, but that his words were since they were censored. The viewership for the Oscars is generally PG-13 if not PG and is almsot always very family friendly

"Crash" is a metaphor for possible violence or to me it makes me think of glass breaking

showing us that there was violence used, unlike in the headline and that this is a serious issue because the police are involved. they also emphasize that it was a live viewing

the use of the word altercation does not inherantly tell us that it was violence that was used.

this paints Smith as an instigator to all of this, and that he is the villain and that Rock is the victim

adding this makes it seem like Jada is a victim, but that violence is okay and that these people are arrogant.

paints Smith as a kind man who wants peace and did not do this in search of violence.

But, this portion implies that Jada is a victim because what she deals with is a serious disease that should not be joked about.

This headline immediately paints that Chris Rock is the victim. A person who is the victim of an assault is able to press charges against the assaulter, and this headlines tells us that.

this also confirms the narrative that Smith is the victim in this because he is a beloved actor, and that he was just about to win best actor.

including this adds to the narrative that Rock is the villain in this because he said these things that did not need to be said. This paints him as a bully to Jada, and that he directly went to attack her in this joke.

serious is in quotations because it is not known if it is true or not. by putting it in quotes, they make it seem like it is not serious and this is all very superficial

using both prominence of Whoopi Goldber, and with credibility with the people behind the curtain who make the decisions about this. Makes this issue seem very important

adding this confirms that this is a serious problem and controversy because of the academy, which is a real organization, putting an investigation into this. They are proving that this is serious because they included this statement.

this information is relatively neutral because it puts both men in a negative light. It tells us that the Smith is aggressive and violent, and that Rock took the joke to far.

This is showing their credibilty by explaining who they are getting their source material from.

this headline implies that this incident was only provoked by Smith and that he is the aggressor in this situation, and that there was nothing on the part of Rock,

this picture and comment imply that will smith is the villain and that he was unreasonably provoked by Rock.

this use of a metaphor is a war metaphor, like aiming a gun at a person to shoot them, he is aiming a joke at her to shoot her with it in a way

This implies even more that Rock was the victim. They make it seem like the joke was only comedic and that it completely provoked Smith from nothing, that he took to much offense to it.

This wrting includes limited information about what took place. And because this is underneath a photo of Chris Rock being slapped, it makes it seem even more like he is the victim of a terrible assault.

This article headline implies more so that Will Smith is the villain and that Chris Rock is the victim of this altercation. This article includes, timeliness, prominence, and controversy.

this interaction that they posted is factually accurate. They included the transcript of what took place. but, they did leave out information that would conclude whether this was provoked or not. They did not include things like how Smith felt, or what happened directly after. The official transcript paints both in a bad light, but mostly shows that Rock was the victim and that Smith was the aggressor.

the beginning of this is fairly neutral. it explains exactly what played out during the time. It does paint Smith in a bit of a negative light because it tells that he walked up there unprovoked to slap Rock, which isn't the case.

This headline is very neutral. it explains what the article is going to do, and it does not paint anyone is the hero or the villain yet. This article shows prominence, timeliness, and controversy/conflict.

including this bit of Smith laughing plays off that he was the aggressor and continues to make him seem like the victim or hero of this situation

showcasing the narrative that Smith was trying to protect his family (his wife) by saving her from the abuse that she was given (Rock making a joke)

adding to the conflict of the situation by mentioning that they were on good terms previously, and that by this comment by Rock that he light a fire and was more so the one to provoke Smith.

including this shows the controversy of this situation, and how it may seem that Will Smith was more provoked than led on. It also makes Rock seem like a villain or a bully because he continues to pick on Jada. This narrative makes it seem like Will Smith is somewhat a hero for defending his wife and her rights.

they again use prominence by mentioning fellow celebrities who talked with the Smiths after the slap. although they keep it relatively neutral by stating the facts of what happened, they dont seem to paint Will or Jada in a negative light. They deflect that he was the one who caused violence.

This depicts the value of conflict. This article states these comments because the issue on the table is a large conflict. They show evidence of this with the prominence of another celebrity mentioning it, and with the academy not allowing reporters to ask questions about it.

this includes prominence because they include another prominent member of the celebrity world.

this article does a good job of keeping it neural and making the facts seemingly unbiased. It uses direct quotes from the people involved, and uses secondary sources of the telecast that was watched by the public.

Although this uses the metaphor of "shock" like a lightning bolt, it is a very neutral and proper description of what happened. The metaphor used concludes that this moment was intense and unusual, kind of like a lightning bolt which is once in a million. It also means that it was slightly painful, like most shocks are.

The different Values included in this article would be prominence because Will Smith is a renowned actor, and so is Chris Rock. it is also prominence because this is the Oscars, which is an award ceremony for some of the most prominent people in the world. This also shows timeliness because it had just happened. it also shows conflict, in the slap portion of the headline and concludes that this joke went wrong.

This headline shows the barebones of what happens, it keeps it simple and to the point. It does not specify that there was violence and keeps it clear that that is what happened.

this piece of information is evident in the picture of the poll and makes sense to include in this article. this is not an anecdote because they are not coming to a false conclusion, but they are coming to a logical conclusion based on the evidence that they have gathered.

some limitations of this survey are what is not said in the survey. There is no knowledge to the age groups, the gender, race, ethnicity, or area where these people were asked. We could conclude that this survey is random because it says Americans as a generalization, yet it doesn't explicitly state that it is random.

by using the evidence that this issue is prominent in this country and in politics, they are making it more meaningful to the readers who are understanding this poll

Know, they include the Pew Research Center surveys to show where else they got their information from. They don't specify in this statement what the surveys will state.

This is where they got their information from and is clearly stated in the first sentence of this article

again using the same kind of metaphor and personification of getting hit and beaten up as if the cyclone is physically beating up Madagascar, which is not possible.

again using the same fighting and war metaphor to show that this cyclone hurt the country of Mozambique.

the title states that it "pounds" Mozambique with a cyclone. This metaphor is also a personification because it is giving human like qualities to non human things. This metaphor can be seen as using the war metaphor, or simply just fighting. Of course a cyclone doesn't have the ability to punch, but using the word pound implies that the force of the cyclone was like a punch to the country. Much like a punch is not pleasant and causes a lot of damage to a person, the same is being said for the cyclone that hit the country.

This metaphor is also a personification where it uses human like traits to explain a non human thing. In this case it is saying that climate change is playing a role in weather changes. This article is using the way a person plays a role in a plan, or plays a role in a play. Simply, it acts. It is emphasizing that the climate crisis is a person who is taking action. The use of the words "play a role" can also mean someone who is helping in a plan of sorts. It implies that the climate crisis is like a person helping out in a structured plan(using a simile), and that this has aided in the terrible weather that has been happening

the term "dry spell" is used as a metaphor and is using magic as a way to relate and understand what is happening. The use of magic is a way to understand that this dry spell came quick and is a once in a while thing that does not happen often, similar to a magical spell which happens quickly and in surprise. Using the magical metaphor also helps to understand that this is not something that happens a lot because magic is not something that happens a lot (and is not actually real) so it shows that this dry spell is surprising.

While plants can be thirsty for water, this is a metaphor and a personification because it is giving human like qualities to water and plants. The use of parched and thirsty means that the plants and reservoirs are without water and need it really badly.

This is a metaphor that is also a personification because it is giving people like qualities to a non person. The use of "hand-in-hand" implies that there will be warm weather at the same time that there will be little to no rain fall and that these to things will come together.

This sentence states that fears are growing. of course fears cant actually grow but it is using the metaphor of plants. The use of the word growing means that it is continuing so the fears of the people are continuing and will continue into the summer.

All of this is showing temporal bias, things that just happened or are happening. People are more inclined to read about what is happening at the moment than what happened long ago so they are using the current events to get more readers.

this is using both narrative bias and status quo bias. Narrative because it is a dramatic story that is happening right now. Status quo bias because it is something that many people believe in and support, so they are more inclined to read this article.

this is an opinion about the violence that has been taking place, yet it does not show a specific side to the story or the view that the article is taking

although this may be true, there is no evidence to back this up in this particular article, so it is both opinion and rumor because the reader does not have facts to back it up

this article is using what other people said from both sides of the issue, Macron who is for it and the Unions who are against it. This allows for a more neutral look at the issue. This is also using a bit of Bothsiderism.

this is fact, and something that can't usually be strewn in another way

This can be seen as opinion, even if they are talking about the views of the public they are still making a conclusion and "picking a side"

this is not something that I was expecting to hear or read about how this issue is going to be fixed

For majority of this semester we gave learned that "sex sells" and it is very apparent in media and advertising. Most media uses sex or romantics to sell their product or to get others to look into what they are saying

I feel like for most people this us still a lot older than most female actresses that are in the spotlight or that the public pays attention to and what the media shows the public.

I think there has been a film with Robert De Niro playing the love interest with much younger Aubrey Plaza