Earlier in the semester, my Writing for the Media teacher asked us a very intriguing question that has been stuck on my mind for a little while now:

"Do you believe that the media is credible?"

When she asked us this, she wasn't expecting a literal answer. But she wanted us to honestly evaluate our field as we were about to further learn about the criteria and practices of professional journalists.

I have wanted to be a journalist since the beginning of high school and nothing in the world seemed better than writing about sports professionally--except maybe actually playing the sports professionally. Never had I really thought about the dilemmas and negative perceptions that came with being a journalist.

Unfortunately, despite my passion for journalistic writing, I have to admit that in this day in age the media is not as credible as we think. But why is that?

The media has lost their focus on facts and no longer exists solely to be informative.

In the age of social media, a journalist's career is heavily reliant on the idea of "clickbait." Basically, all the clicks, views, likes and shares are what influence the media to conduct themselves the way they do. For example, headline news about Trump tweeting about the NFL protest is not very informative and does not necessarily provide any kind of real insight, but because it is the president of the United States tweeting, it will definitely get views and is prioritized as if it were "news."

In my eyes, the social media age has watered down journalism because the ability to expand one's brand is at any and everyone's fingertips, which allow individuals to take advantage of that simple access to somehow instantly gain fame and/or fortune.

With this in mind, journalists' judgments are clouded by their pursuit of fame. Once they gain that fame, they have to continue to produce watered down, "clickbait" content in order to stay on the job.

The media has also had a selective representation of things within society.

I actually have a few examples that explain what I mean. Exhibit A: During the Freddie Gray riots in Baltimore City, the news primarily, if not completely, showed just the riots themselves. At no time did they really show footage of the peaceful protests that took place prior to those riots. This was the media utilizing the idea of violence and uprising to acquire focus from society on the topic. The media displays certain things like violence or celebration that intrigue the masses rather than truly informing them of the entire truth.

Exhibit B relates back to my example of the president tweeting about the NFL anthem protest. Anyone that clearly understands the cause, would know that the anthem protest is protesting police brutality and racial-based violence against primarily African American males. But if you left it up to the media and Trump, you would miss the entire point and look at it as the players rebelling and degrading the nationalism and patriotism of the United States.

The media is very tricky, because they will support those who support them and degrade those who are against them, rather than being fully unbiased the way journalists are supposed to. It's hard to be informative when you either do not tell the entirety of the truth, or you include your own two cents into the story--which typically manipulates the wording and phrasing of the story.

I love journalism. I watch podcasts and read articles, and I want to become apart of that. But in the pursuit of becoming a journalist, I want to change the narrative about the media. I want to be a representation of what the media was meant to be: informative, entertaining, and understandable for all readers. Yes, I criticized the media, the people I strive to join; but I want to set a better standard for the integrity and meaning of journalistic writing.

We all have our own opinions though. So the next time you're watching channels like CNN, NBC or even your local news, just ask yourself: Do YOU believe the media is credible?