Oliver, Noah and Minhaj walk into a bar..

     Political comedians. Are they funny? Yes. Are they a good source of information around the world? Also yes. Are they the only source you should use to gain an intellectual opinion about worldly news? Absolutely not.

     People like John Oliver, Trevor Noah, and Hasan Minhaj are easily the most digestible way for me to intake political news along with the 4.6 million people that tune in to every episode of John Oliver. If you don't know who John Oliver is, he is a political comedian who hosts a show called "Last Week Tonight" on HBO. With topics ranging from Authoritarianism to family separation or even to psychics John Oliver's 'Last Week Tonight' is a good source for a little bit of information about everything while also poking fun at stereotypes and making other jokes throughout the show.

     Trevor Noah is the host of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central previously hosted by Jon Stewart. Given that The Daily Show is on Comedy Central you would anticipate this show would be funnier than John Olivers Last Week Tonight, but the segments leave much more room for fluff than actual information. With that being said there is still information to be learned from Trevor Noah and many more follow-ups on previous segments if there is a topic you want consistent updates on.

     If you are too busy to be bothered to look for either of these shows on HBO, Comedy Central orYoutube I would highly recommend Hasan Minhaj's Patriot Act on Netflix. Coming from an Indian Muslim family Minhaj brings a new perspective to political comedy. Hasan has the ability to speak about affirmative action programs, Amazon, and even censorship in China while still putting a fun twist on his segments.

     All in all political comedians, in general, make political news far more interesting and although they shouldn't be used as the most valid source of information they sure are entertaining.

SHHHH....That's Private!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

     The First Amendment is one of the greatest things to happen to Americans. It allows us freedom in our writing or spoken word, as well as the freedom to assemble in groups, criticize the government and practice any religion we would like-or no religion at all. Having all of these freedoms come at no cost to us, except that they're not really as "free" as we want, but maybe sometimes that's a good thing? The First Amendment was put in place to assure that the government could not interfere with the aforementioned freedoms of individuals which is impressive, but also allows people to say hateful, slanderous things to other people face to face or online. It is only through private institutions that people can be punished for these actions. So what happens if private institutions choose to do nothing in these situations?

     There was recently an incident that allegedly happened at my school, High Point University, where a black student was targeted by white members of a fraternity on campus for "coming in and dancing with all the white women" along with many racist slurs.

     Now let's break this down because there are a number of things that come in to play here, not just racism but also classism and sexism.

     These men that allegedly sent the texts, let us call them PWM (privileged white men), have the upper hand in this situation regardless of the outcome because: 1. They're white, which systematically comes with an abundance of privilege. I don't have time to list all of these privileges here, but Peggy McIntosh does a great job naming them in her writing entitled Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

     And 2. High Point University in itself runs off of the donations of others, creating an issue of classism. If you are a VIF (Very Important Family; no I'm not kidding, they're real) here at HPU, you already get an abundance of things other students don't because you pay full tuition or your parents have donated to the school. These things are more than just a free t-shirt and meal card for the cafe. They are allowed to register for classes before anyone else, showing that if you have more money you can claim your education, while the masses have to wait and receive an education. VIF's get the first choice in housing on campus (to assure that the children are happy in their living situation so the parents will continue to donate more money). 

     Oh and if on campus security catches them doing something the officers are told to do nothing at all, while the same things being done by "average" students could result in a multitude of repercussions.

     So, sending these racist text messages was probably assumed to be something that could be fixed and hidden under the warm fur coat of ~Daddy's Money~, and because this is a private institution, they're probably right.

     The administration can make sure that these boys are not penalized in any way, and can create new "initiative programs" to create a more inclusive campus that no one ever attends because they don't see what needs to be changed due to the lack of gravity put on situations like this in private universities. Our school holds its Communication program higher than most programs but also isn't accredited due to "not being allowed to a have freely run school newspaper" that allows students to write about these matters, or any other issues they feel are essential. This private institution, High Point University, can protect the freedom of speech of these PWM's and VIF's while limiting the freedom of speech of every other student on campus.

     If I was to want to publish this blog post to the school newspaper would they allow me to or would it speak too ill of the school? When will private institutions like this one take control over situations of discrimination and assure the safety and inclusivity of all people? Why is this even still a question today?

But is that really true...?

     Media in all forms is digested by most citizens in the United States in one way or another, but how are we supposed to know what is real versus what is fake on TV or online? This idea of not knowing reality from "supposed reality" portrayed on news outlets becomes detrimental to the general population, especially regarding political news. With the polarization our country is facing in the current political climate it is paramount that people are getting facts and not fiction, so what happens when this fiction is being spread by our Commander in Chief? Donald Trump is infamous for a multitude of reasons, one being his consistent proclamation of being a victim of "fake news" whenever something is published that he does not like, and lately, he has not been a fan of people fact-checking his speeches. In his 2019 State of the Union address, Donald Trump stated at least 10 false claims regarding the United States of America since he took office in 2016.

     Having used the media, particularly Twitter, as a tool to gain support throughout his campaign and presidency by speak to the general public directly, Donald Trump was not ready for the media to work against him now. On February 11, 2019, Trump shared his frustrations about being fact-checked by comparing himself to President Obama, in particular, The Affordable Care Act. Trump stated:

"You can keep your doctor, remember that, 28 times. That didn’t happen; turned out to be a lie. Hey, where are the fact-checkers? You know some of the most dishonest people in media are the so-called fact-checkers. Twenty-eight times. You can keep your doctor, that didn’t turn out to be what he said."

-->

     Although it is true that President Obama didn't have to get fact checked in the same way Trump does, isn't the more significant issue at hand that we need fact checkers on the President of the United States at all? Is democracy still a democracy if the people participating in government don't know how their votes will actually affect the nation? Would there be as much political polarization if people heard facts rather than bias news from media outlets that made their mind up about what side they're on far before they even hear the news? Lastly, how can average Americans know what is really true in the media at all?

The Glorious Powers of Grammarly

     Alas, I am only approximately ten words into this blog post and have already needed spellcheck twice (yes, one of those times was when I was spelling approximately, its a hard word). Grammarly works as a spell check but also works as grammar check in that it will add characters like commas or parenthesis to edit your writing, check for run-on or fragmented sentences, and even notes if the tense you're writing in has changed. 

     Not only did Grammarly help me spell and correct my grammar, but it also has a vocabulary enhancement feature that provides words I could use to replace words that are often used too much in writing. In addition, there is a plagiarism feature that can work as a safety net to assure all research-based writing or things of that nature are cited properly in your work. Grammarly is there to help me in all aspects of writing all the time---on every post I create, email I send, or paper I'm about to submit for school. Grammarly is with me, helping me, checking on me and making me become a better writer. It's like the middle school teacher that was supposed to teach you grammar is now an omniscient grammar god that is roughly 10x better than your English teacher ever was.

     Grammarly can be added to google chrome as an extension, so it edits every document you open, but can also be used to upload documents you've already created. There is also an additional feature where you can pay to have another human physically proofread and edit your work to help you further. There is no reason anyone this day in age should still misuse 'their, they're and there' or 'your, and you're' or use the Oxford comma wrong when Grammarly is there to help.

Check Grammarly out here!