 Yeah, bingo. It's 12 o'clock and it's a given Monday and Maria is with us. Maria Park Holmchuk. Hi, Maria. Nice to have you on the show. Thank you for having me. Yeah, Maria is an intern with Think Tech and we want to have a show with her to, you know, meet her, so to speak. And I think it's very important that we cover things that are totally relevant that are happening right now, because she's a journalism student at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism in ASU. But if you watch PBS NewsHour, you know that they're closely affiliated with the NewsHour. I really like that. And that what that means is the Walter Cronkite School is a very important school. It's a national school in journalism. Good for you, Maria, good for you for being there and for studying journalism. So we're going to talk about journalism today. The first thing I want to talk about is, what's it like to be a remote student at the Walter Cronkite School? Absolutely. So for me, I have the privilege of attending ASU Walter Cronkite and still live here in my home state of Hawaii. So I get to take the lessons from that school from my professors and my mentors and apply it to the local community here, which has been transformative as far as from my experience because I grew up in Hawaii. You know, I know the people here I'm connected, but being able to look at the state from a journalist perspective just gave me an entirely new experience with what I thought I knew and what I know now. Well, if you're a diagnosed journalist person, you don't mind going to war zones. You don't mind traveling to, you know, developing countries. You don't mind talking to people who don't speak English. You don't mind chasing the development of humanity anywhere it takes you. Am I right about that? Absolutely. Journalism is in no way a comfortable job. You know, you're always learning something new every day and being challenged. And that's one of the things that I wanted to pursue and why journalism fits so well. For me, that journalism is a civic engagement. You know, it's the bridge between your government and the people. So the reason that I decided to take this route is because I wanted to reassure people in those uncertain and doubtful times and to inform them in moments of confusion, especially in the pandemic that we're experiencing now. So I don't want to be comfortable in a profession. I want to grow and learn. And I think the best way to do that is connecting with people. The problem, though, is that journalism and, you know, news gathering, so to speak, is under a lot of pressure. Two ways I can think of, you know, one is it's under economic pressure, and the other is it's under political pressure, both of which could be, you know, devastating to the industry going forward. You realize all this, you see all you must know about this, and still you select journalism as your application. Aren't you worried? Yes, absolutely. So especially, you know, over the recent years with the fake news stigma around journalism, it's more important than ever to make sure that you're building that trust with your viewers and with your audience, because a lot of people are quick to dismiss a newscast that doesn't agree with their pre-determined beliefs. But I think honestly, you know, especially in these times, it's more important to have that factual, informative journalism. And it's a good path to follow, but your audience has to want to hear it. And I think that's where journalists need to focus their energy is reconnecting and rebuilding that trust that was lost, so that we can get back to original journalism as it once was. Yeah, let me take you down a slightly different path, though. There's always the dichotomy of giving the people what the people want to know, and giving the people what the people should know to be good citizens in our democracy. I do reconcile the difference between those two because some news organizations are more inclined to give people what they think people want to hear, rather than give people what people should be hearing. Where do you react on that? I think that falls with personal integrity. As news outlets and news organizations, obviously the mindset and ideas of your viewership is important, so you want to tell those stories, but not compromise the ethics of journalism. Finding that middle ground between making sure that you're consistent factual and informative, and also making sure that you're not ignoring the needs of your audience. It's finding both sides of the island coming together in that sense. And I think right now with so many news organizations not doing that or pandering to viewership and quantity amount, it's more important to stand out from that crowd and just fall in line with your intent and your personal integrity. Yeah, and also the priorities. Every journalist has to make his or her mind about what's important here, what's important for the democracy, for the society. And sometimes people don't know. They just don't go to school for that and they may not understand what's really important. So the journalist in making the priorities and figuring out what to talk to them about what to select, either as, you know, a factual report a story or an op-ed opinion story. You're teaching people. You're teaching citizens, you're teaching the electorate. So you always have it in prayer. I hope you recognize this. Do you recognize this? Freshly, I think with journalists, you're not so much teaching as passing along the stories of your community. So essentially your community is teaching you along with everyone else. I think we can all take more time to understand each other's perspectives and learn from one another. And a journalist essentially acts as that messenger and that storyteller. But also to save our democracy, which is under threat. So what about what I mentioned, you know, the thousands of journalists have lost their jobs in the past years, say in 2019. Hundreds of newspapers, even local newspapers, which are especially local newspapers, which are important, you know, in our country have folded. And this is problematic, isn't it? It's problematic for the readership. It's problematic for the analysis. It's problematic for certainly for jobs like the jobs you want to have. Where do you see it going? I mean, if you look at it within the container of 2019, forget about COVID for a minute, just the way it was going before COVID. Yeah, I definitely think right now it's an unsteady time for journalism with everyone losing third, not everyone, but there's an obvious, I guess downhill slope that we're experiencing. Less people are watching the news. More people are accessing Facebook and other commentary based news outlets versus your factual storytelling standard journalism. And like I said, I think with fake news, it could easily end up being where you lose that viewership and that trust from your audience. So it, as long as we're making efforts to rebuild that trust with our community, with our government, and as long as we're working on getting these stories out and prioritizing fact based journalism over sensationalism, I think there's hope that we can get back up to where we once were before 2019. Okay, I hope so. But let's talk about the economics of the internet. You know, a lot of newspapers, primary newspapers, primary source original news newspapers, there aren't that many of them left actually, have gone on the internet. And even I noticed just a couple of days ago that that the star bullet and a hundred star advertiser changed its online format to include a choice for you to read the paper that's printed. So you get the whole, the whole paper, double double fold kind of all that. I'm saying that's a that's a significant change. I don't know exactly what it means maybe people are seeking that maybe people don't want to read the actual hard copy newspaper, they like to see a virtual of the hard copy newspaper. I see that the star advertiser is, is evolving into a newspaper, which doesn't have a hard copy paper edition, and that's all online, I mean, all these, all these newspapers are evolving into the internet. And I think it's worth discussing because I think the paper versions, maybe little by little going away for many reasons what do you think. I, I stand with it as, you know, we as society. Everyone is switching more to virtual information and access to information is at the tip of our fingers now if we want an article on a particular subject in 0.2 seconds we can generate that. With journalism, it's our responsibility and our role to adapt with that we can't expect people to remain stagnant. So I think they're taking a proactive step in switching to this virtual news delivery because they're encouraging readers to still remain connected with the issues of their state in their nation, and also doing so in a way that doesn't force everyone to kind of back pedal to where we once were. I personally don't think there are any issues with virtual access to news so long as people are accessing that news at the end of the day. Now the economics that flow out of that reflected in an article. I want to say the times I sent you that article was that the times of the Washington Post or what. I believe it was. I think yeah I think it was the times and it was a story about two regulators, one in Australia, and one in France. They were determined to get both Google and Facebook to pay original news original news sources for the stories because I, you know, you have to think about it but what happens is Google Facebook and others on online they take the news. That's reported by the original sources, whether it's in paper or on the websites, and they make that news their own. And then they, you know, then they, they propagate that news and sell that news and get ads for that news even though they didn't spend any money at all in generating the original news. They don't have a newsroom they just pull it off other other sites other places, and both of these regulators perhaps they're about God, in the sense that they want both Google and Facebook to pay the original sources. Now what's interesting about the story, then I'll let you tell more of it is that the is that the, the Facebook people are agreeable to pay the Google people are not agreeable to pay. They both have, you know, completely different 180 positions on this. What do you think about this story is this going to take off in other places, other original news sources other countries other regulators, or is, or is the position that Google takes namely blowing off their request going to prevail. Yeah, I definitely think it's a profound article and an interesting discussion to have on one end news shouldn't be held captive we should be doing everything to spread that message around but on the other hand if you deprive news organizations of that funding that they need to continue you're not going to have these stories to tell. So it falls back on realizing the importance of the news outlet and the news organization that is delivering these messages and making sure that we honor them and the work that they do put in and continue that funding as far as economics So I am a novice in the journalism world, but I think it's important and prevalent if we want to continue to have that civic engagement to honor the people that are going out there and putting their lives on the line and giving time to these community members to have their voices heard. Yeah, let me say that going forward, as it evolves as the industry evolves, everyone is going to be watching the economics, all the time, there'll be papers that fail, there'll be internet news sites that fail, there'll be new entries who are successful in a matter of minutes. So it's going to move very fast and and so a career like the one you're going to have really depends on being nimble. And I think you'll probably have many, many jobs, many men, and the question I suppose is when do you like freelance, or do you like working for one organization at a time. Do you have any inclination on that. So far I've actually had the privilege of interning with broadcast station here on the island and a few different media organizations. So I've got to see the different types of leadership and journalism and the values that each corporation or organization does hold. Personally, the thing I love about freelance is being able to get out and pursue the stories that I feel are important to tell, and then putting that together from start to finish, from the writing to the editing process and then having people, I guess, engage and give their feedback on that. I think that's important on a crucial part of a growing journalist. And then at the same time, with an organization that has its set values and the message and forth. If you agree with that mission and it falls in line with your personal integrity, then that's a match made in heaven essentially and that's what I am ideally pursuing. Let's talk about investigative journalism. You know, you talk about the good old days when they were investigative journalists who are given news organization would give a blank check, you know, go out there and take the money take the time take the travel whatever you need, research this until we know the truth, and only then come back and print. So that's a different genre to different kettle of fish. How do you feel about that and how do you feel about that for you. I think journalists, I mean today still do that it's it's very interesting and definitely a risk to take to pursue a story because you don't know how it's going to end and I think that's the main fun of it is trusting the community to give you that feedback and that story to tell. And then that's also important to remember. There's a team of 100 people you know the other producers, the photographers and everyone coming together and brainstorming how are we going to best tell this in a way that honors the story itself. I think investigative journalism is an amazing career path and one that I do want to take up on, especially in regions where we don't know enough about them we're so close to our own perspective and what we experienced. So we don't know what's going on in Lebanon and these third world countries I think those are the stories that we need to prioritize, because if you're telling these stories and you're investigating to detail that what is happening then what that could lead to is aid to the region, more civic engagement, more people understanding the perspective of someone who's five 6000 miles away and then at the end of the day we're more connected. You know it's interesting as you know if you watch for example MSNBC. A lot of the, a lot of the interviews are with journalists. The journalist is the host, the TV journalist, the moderator, what have you, and the people who come and talk to him and provide information. They are also journalists. And that's because they have become expert. They have written stories. They have followed this they have done investigative reporting on it. They know the players and they are sources of themselves. You know I don't think this was always the case but it's certainly the case now. And you know I suspect that one of the reasons that this happens is it's hard for that media to bring in original source interview, interviewees, because they're not, they can't come because their jobs don't allow them to come their bosses their government organizations, certainly in the, you know anything around the White House it's all controlled. Not only is the appearance control but the messages control this really hard to get original source information in an environment like that. I think that's going to happen more and more that journalists will be the witnesses, they'll be the experts, they'll come and tell us on a TV program where a number of them appear. How do you feel about being one of them. How do you feel about learning a story, writing the story and then coming telling the story on a TV news program. I definitely agree you know now with finding a primary source, it gets harder because you have these organizations, you know that don't want to answer the questions that everyone wants answered, just to protect their reputation or what what it be. But any journalist will tell you that ideally they want that primary source they want the person who experienced it firsthand rather than a retelling and that's that's the story that we want to tell. Over the years journalists collect life experiences and stories from all kinds of people so they can bring that forth in a meaningful way, but I for me. I just want to moderate the conversation but let the storyteller be the person who experienced it down the line that is problematic because of that control as you say, then I still think that story should be told regardless we shouldn't just decide oh we're not going to tell it because we're not going to tell the source, but we should press on to make sure that we're getting creative with the types of people that can talk about this. I mean even now as you and I are talking about the state of journalism. There's so many range of professionals that can give their input on this that could make it an even broader discussion. I agree. Anyway, so let's take a few minutes and talk about COVID COVID is the biggest story of our times and for the older people like me. It's the biggest story of our lives. It's, it's remarkable, it's threatening, it's existential, and it is changing the world. So my question to you is how is it changing journalism. It's changing reporting. It sucks up all the oxygen because it is the, you know, if you look at any original source now, it will involve 90% of it will be about COVID. So, how do you feel about that. Isn't that changing everything. I think the most interesting thing for me, while I was interning with KHON channel to news is I started my internship with the tragedy at Diamondhead which was very hard day to experience firsthand as a young broadcast intern, and I ended my journalism experience with the station discussing COVID-19. So, from start to finish I experienced things that I as a journalist as a young person never thought that I would engage with. But it left me understanding, you know, at the end of the day, these stories need to be told. If everyone is at a time where they're unsure of what's going on they don't know what they're going to seek journalists to help them better grasp what is going, better communicate with their government. So right now, journalists are the pathway between what the state is doing, what the nation is doing and your local audience at home trying to figure out, you know, how they're going to move on with their life, how they're going to feed their kids and all of these tense uncertain situations. Ideally, you don't want to spend all of our time talking about COVID-19, there are other stories to tell, but it's such an overpowering issue at the moment with everyone, almost everyone being affected directly, that we need to make sure that we're getting as much information into the public as many updates and back checking numerous times a day just to make sure that we're not spreading misinformation and people are informed because when you're informed you're more sure of your next steps, you're not stuck in that confusion and panic. Well, there are a lot of people that are nevertheless stuck. You know, and government is stuck. If you see both state and federal government, you see people who are very concerned they're going to make a mistake. They are very concerned with whatever they say they don't tell the public everything they want to avoid panic. They're doing it for reaction. They're doing it to control public opinion. And it's sort of like what we were talking about before. They want to control the message. They don't want anybody speaking but them. And you see that certainly in the White House and you see it also that control thing happening here in the state about COVID. And so, you know, the reporter can, he can attend those conferences and just take it as it is given, you know, and whatever information is spoon fed in those press conferences or he or she can go out there further and check it out and see whether it's true or not. And try to talk to independent people, some of whom are going to want to be anonymous, some of whom are not authorized to speak. So this really adds a whole dimension of, you know, the old style is that they have a press conference, you come, you write it beautifully down, you go and you report it. Hmm, boring. And it's not necessarily true. So now you have a different burden when you cover COVID. You have to be your own independent reporter, and you have to find you have to test everything that is that is given to you, either by the government or by a public relations organization, which are paid again to control the message. This makes it more challenging, don't you think You know, being in the press conferences and getting to sit in on those. I found our journalists here in Hawaii, especially are some of the most hardworking, thorough people that I have ever met, even in those press conferences, you know, they're doing so much more than just taking notes, they're asking the hard questions that officials otherwise wouldn't put out on their own, and they're holding them accountable. I've seen it firsthand. They're asking the questions that viewers call in, you know, they're expressing their concern. I don't know when my kid which can return to school, you know, I lost my job. They're making sure that these concerns get addressed and these discussions are being had so I definitely think that as far as the journalists, they're doing their part about holding officials accountable and getting information to the public. It does get really hard because we are learning about this unprecedented pandemic, almost at the same time. So as soon as information does become available, we have to make sure that it's factual we have to make sure that all sides of it are true so that we're not confusing the public further because everyone right now is so unsure of what is to come and what is coming at the moment. Well that takes me to my last and maybe my most important question for you, Maria. That is this. You know you talk about being absolutely factual talking about delivering the news in the most accurate way. And of course we want that. That's the standard. And also when I say we I mean me but I mean everybody I know, we want to hear your opinions. We want to hear your expectations. We want to hear your projections. We want you to connect the dots and give us a view into the future, because we treat you as experts as I said, you do the investigation, you know the story. Not every reporter can do this, not every reporter should do this. But when you look at the op end pieces by the regular columnists in the in the New York Times. It is an education beyond the news. Where do you see that, where do you see columnists and reporters who are able to connect the dots who are able to give us inside beyond inside being the operative word inside beyond just reporting the facts. Right now I completely understand that, even with factual journalism there's always going to be that bias with the reporter and with the conversation that is being had so the main thing that I've learned as a journalism student has been emphasized over and over is objectivity. They want us to stay, you know, focused on what the facts are and what the information that is needed to present it. But that only goes so far, you know you want to have people understand your side of the story if what you've discovered and where you stand on the issue. And I think the, that's why opinion editorials columnists are such an important part of journalism is because some people don't consider this other perspective. So, as far as I'm concerned, journalism should be reported object. Ooh, excuse me. Journalism should be reported as an objective fact based information, but at the same time, we should have these discussions a panel to talk about you know the perspectives of community members of our own experiences just to further that deeper meaning of understanding. I think both sides should be welcomed and as long as we're clear clearly displaying what the facts are and what the opinion is in the perspective is, then we're still holding on to that integrity and that objectivity. Well, I want to give you an example and see how you react to it. My sister-in-law is Linda greenhouse. She is a multiple award winner for the New York Times she has covered the United States Supreme Court for 30 years. She retired from active writing a couple of years ago but every two weeks, she has a piece in the paper. And she's been on the front page like for all those years. So, a couple of weeks ago she wrote an article about the Supreme Court. Indicating that the Supreme Court had gone activist and that's right wing activist indicating the Supreme Court was not could not be trusted to follow the law. This is really something this is a remarkable statement this is not just reporting the facts. She's also found that they're fragmented in their in their decision process and they're thinking their opinions and other articles. These are remarkable articles and people are reading them all over the place, but they're not straight fact. The analysis there. They provide characterizations conclusions expectations concerns issues that are huge in evaluating the way our democracy is working. And if our democracy is going to work it's going to have the First Amendment, it's going to have the power of journalism. It's got to have this. It's not just he said this and she said that as accurate or inaccurate as that may be. This is something to aspire to. I offered to you as a, you know, a journalism student and somebody who wants to have a career, a great career in journalism. Isn't that on the career path to to be able to do that to become such an expert to have such a depth of understanding that you can really see it for the reality of it, and you can express your opinion and have an effect on on how other people shape Oh, absolutely. I completely agree. Even the journalists that I love to are the ones who can take these stories digest the information and then tell their side of it and what they understood from the story that was being told. I definitely aspire to get to that level to a point where I can have these discussions with people and also present my stance. I think right now the focus really is just not compromising facts versus your analysis so making sure that you're still analyzing the information and putting forth a deeper discussion rather than he said he said, but not in a way that forces your opinion on to others encourages others to come forth with their opinions. I essentially as a journalist, all I want is for others to be confident and vocal about their concerns and their opinions and come together to debate and discuss that so that we can reach a deeper understanding. I think that's the best way to digest the facts and bring a profound analysis of the situation. Maria Park Homecheck, a think tech intern, a journalist at the Walter Cronkite School at journalism school at ASU and at the beginning stages of a great career in journalism. Thank you so much, Maria. Thank you for having me. Talk to you later. Thanks. Bye.