Every time there is a change in the church, it seems like there is contention and loud opinions shared. It probably seems more widespread than it actually is because of social media and everyone has an opinion they need to share. Recently, there have been some changes in the garments that have caused people to chime in on whether it is right or wrong to make these changes. The same pattern happens whenever there are changes of any kind. Most people seem to roll with it just fine and a small vocal percentage has a freak out. If the leadership of the church thought it was ok to change the style, you are not any less faithful if you choose to wear that style. 

From the time Caitlin Clark was finishing her college career at Iowa, players in the WNBA have been taking shots at her. They began making comments at that time about how she would have a hard time adjusting to the WNBA and implying that she would struggle. When she arrived in the league and had success, they seem to have adopted a different tactic. They have repeatedly tried to rough her up with hard fouls that would be categorized as fouls outside the typical way in which the game is played. The question is, why? 

Following the current events of the world can be depressing at times. As fighting breaks out in the Middle East and Europe, it's easy to feel downtrodden. Why can't people just reconcile and be kind to each other? Isn't it better to make concessions that may be uncomfortable and save lives than to go through the great loss of life? I have very little understanding of the nuances of the conflicts taking place right now, so forgive my ignorance, but I do understand much of it is related to land claims by the different people indigenous to the area. I understand the land is sacred to both sides, but at a certain point, isn't it just dirt? I look at the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and how often early members were forced off land that was sacred to them. How do you think the early saints felt as they walked away from the Kirtland Temple after sacrificing so much of their means and time to build it? How about Nauvoo? Even Independence and Farr West, where there were revelations received about the sacredness of that land?

My favorite project of the course was the article writing. That is something I didn't anticipate saying at the beginning of the course. I learned a lot from the experiences of conducting interviews. It was enjoyable for me to find a story I was interested in and select people I wanted to interview about the subject. It was also enjoyable for me to formulate questions for the interview that would elicit the best responses. Initially it was difficult to avoid questions that could simply be answered with a "yes" or "no". I think you can still ask those questions, but there has to be a follow up after. Otherwise, the interview could be very brief and uninteresting. 

Social media has really been a game changer for misinformation. I know it is a popular sentiment that everyone deserves a voice and everyone needs to be seen. I fully believe that everyone should be seen and feel loved. But does every opinion need to be heard? Are we really better off now that anyone and everyone has a platform? This could just be my introvert feelings coming out, but I don't feel like we are better off as a society in the social media age. Maybe I am just following the wrong people, but it feels like a large segment of the population believes that if something was on the internet, it must be true.

Interviewing people has been an interesting, eye-opening experience. It has really made me appreciate those in the media who conduct interviews. You really have to have a quick-thinking brain. You have to be able to listen to the answers being given by the interviewee and pivot off of their answers. I hope to be able to hone that skill in my own life, even if my job doesn't call for that. 

In my opinion, there is a clear and distinct difference in a story being newsworthy and mere sensationalism. Does the story have far reaching effects? Does it change the status quo in any way? If the answer to these questions is "no", then it is probably sensationalism. We have been talking about ledes a lot in our class. I have noticed that in stories that are sensationalized, the lede is buried and often insignificant. 

If you spend enough time on social media as a member of the church, it is inevitable you will find pretty vile things written about the church and especially Joseph Smith. It is manifestation of the words Moroni spoke to Joseph a few years after he received the "First Vision" when he told Joseph his name would be "had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues". Why did Moroni need to share this with Joseph at the early part of his ministry? Perhaps he needed this warning early because he was already experiencing it. As soon as he tried sharing his experience of the "First Vision" with others, his name was being had for evil. Much of the worst criticisms you see about the prophet come from former members. This illustrates the point Elder Neil A. Maxwell made when he said, “Studying the Church … through the eyes of its defectors is like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.” 

Many people were not looking forward to watching an NBA Finals with two small market teams in the Oklahoma City Thunder and Indiana Pacers. However, Game 1 proved to be as exciting as any large market teams could produce. The Thunder led the game pretty much from start to finish with the exception of the last 0.3 seconds. Tyrese Halliburton scored the game-winning jump shot after a miss from Shea Gilgeous-Alexander on the other end, leaving the Pacers with approximately 8 seconds to try to score. Gilgeous-Alexander had another 30+ game. He was the best player on the floor, but it wasn't enough to stave off the Pacers. Halliburton was effective in crunch time again after repeatedly dealing the knockout blows to the New York Knicks in their previous series.