Who exactly are the gatekeepers in journalism’s ever evolving ways? Who keeps the integrity of a publication, piece, or

journalist themselves? These are all questions examined in both George Rodman’s text as well as Goodnight and

Goodluck and The Most Dangerous Man in America. Both films revolve around historic figures within the journalism

community. Both figures also serves of figure heads of the watchdog ideology we learned about. A watchdog is an

agency or person who takes the place of “checking” an organization, business, or government to make sure they are

remaining honest. Several similar figures may be remembered in recent history. Both stories reminded me of Edward

Snowden, an American whistleblower and ex-Intelligence worker. Goodnight and Goodluck tackles exposing

McCarthyism, which is arguably one of the most controversial times in recent American history. McCarthyism is so

controversial because it was the antidote to communism. It was seen as perfectly acceptable in the day, although it

vilified innocent Americans. CBS news anchor Edward R. Murrow and producer Fred Friendly expose McCarthy’s

underlying actions. The film is interesting because it also shows the pressures Murrow and Friendly face from CBS

itself, as well as audience reception. The film shows traditional journalism’s roots, and inception. It shows the way an

exposé used to occur, and is valuable to look over as the media progresses.

The Most Dangerous Man in America shows Daniel Ellsberg exposing the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg’s position as a

military strategist drastically helped him have the positionality to expose the papers. This is similar to Snowden’s

position as an insider. However, both are different to Murrow, as he is a member of the press who exposes a

government injustice. This brings up the question, how does whistleblowing or exposing differ from the inside versus the

outside? How trustworthy is a source depending on its origin? Personally, I think that a source may be deemed more

trustworthy to the public if it comes from a media/news source, whereas a government insider may be more informative.

To summarize, the public may understand a news anchor more, but a government official may be more informative.

This is apparent in nearly every celebrity scandal. The information is public knowledge for quite some time, but never

goes viral, until a movie, article, or some other form of media is published. It’s part of the reason Bill Cosby is viewed

much differently than Woody Allen. Both have committed various heinous acts, but Cosby’s have an explosive

docu-series behind them. Perhaps, it’ll take a film or TV series for Woody Allen to be exposed. So, why is the America.

public like this? Why are we only willing to “cancel” someone when it goes viral? Is this simply cancel culture, or does it

reveal a deeper problem? Perhaps this is part of the human condition in a way. As humans, we are more likely to be

invested in something when it is formulated as a story. We are more interested, excited, and invested when there are

characters and events. It’s why stories blow up, like Cosby’s did, when paired with a movie or visual medium. R. Kelly

is just another example of this. His victimization of young black women was widely known, but not really spoken about,

until a docu-series was made. How has society shifted over time to accommodate for this change? And how, if so, was

Ellsberg responsible for this?

Evolving journalism is the transition of journalism over time with the development of technology, evolving practice, and

new new stories. Journalism must evolve with the times in order to remain newsworthy and ground breaking. In recent

times, we have seen the evolution of news within the personal sphere. Twitter has exploded as a means of news. Some

of the most viral occurrences- celebrity deaths, storms, and even mass shootings are all usually reported on social

media. Generation Z may find out most of their news through Twitter. How does this change the news itself? How might

the spread of news change even more in the future? As news spreads more rapidly through social media, its impact

varies greatly. The news itself almost seems regular and ordinary. However, this mode of news does make it much

more convenient. I have heard of several mass shootings through Twitter. Each time, the reaction has been different,

usually depending on the incident itself. The Parkland and Pulse shootings were the two I remember the most clearly. It

was interesting to see other people’s reactions. People my age, that I could relate to, not just static news anchors.

Ultimately, Twitter is the paramount of modern news and evolving journalism.