editorials | Plaid Line + PRIZM + Scottie News

By: Sylvia Yannsdottir

In the United States today, an estimated 90 million families own some kind of pet. This is nearly 70 percent of households in the country. This included a wide variety of animals, the most popular being dogs, followed by cats, fish, and birds. The number of pet-owning households in the United States has been steadily increasing over the past few years.

The most popular pets in the world are dogs. There are endless options of diverse breeds of dogs, and they are commonly referred to as “man’s best friend.” Dogs have always been known for their loyalty, and playfulness. Aside from that, cats are another very popular pet, which are known for their calmer energy and self sufficiency.

When it comes to the impact of owning pets, I think it’s more of a personal topic rather than a general topic. Almost everybody you know probably has some connection to a pet, and each in their own way. For some people, they may recall gentle memories from their childhood with their first dog, others may look forward to laying with their cat after a long day, some people might even think of their last hamster from time to time.

If one thing is for certain, it’s the fact that the connection you have with a pet is an irreplaceable bond. It varies from person to person, but overall I’d say that having a pet is a very special thing that can be super beneficial for emotional wellbeing, and brings you to inevitably practice better habits. For example, learning how to be patient with your pet, taking care of them, or going out of your way to take them out for a walk can be ways that you practice better habits without even realizing it.

Overall, I believe that owning a pet has a very good lasting impact on someone’s life, and it’s honestly irreplaceable. I also believe that it’s a great thing how popular it’s become to have a pet as part of a family now, and would hope that it stays that way.

By: Baarika Suresh

Note: This is the second article in a series that looks at ethics.

Regarding the United States upcoming election, two major newspapers, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times decided to make the choice to not publish editorials endorsing a presidential political candidate. Newspapers choosing not to endorse a candidate has become more popular now. USA Today and the Wall Street Journal haven’t backed a candidate for awhile. That leaves just the New York Times still endorsing a candidate, out of all the major national newspapers, and they are backing Kamala Harris and the Democrats. Shifting away from the practice of endorsing candidates has also been a popular trend with more regional newspapers as well.

This has sparked a decline in subscriptions and many mixed reviews online. Some of these were a criticism of the move, claiming that this is the downfall of American democracy. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are owned by two billionaire American businessmen, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong respectively, and were bought from families that had traditionally passed the papers down from generation to generation. Both the newspapers have historically leaned left but have recently decided not to endorse the democratic presidential nomination this election. People online think this is because if the republican candidate does get elected then the billionaires will lose money, as Trump might try to target their newspapers for not backing him.

The question is: Is this a method of self preservation or could it be the idea of good media ethics?

Newspapers that lean a certain way can show only one point of view clearly and show the other side more blurrily. For example, editorials in The Washington Post kept a count of Trump’s lies but did not bother to track Harris’s as well. Would it be fair if a newspaper only published Harris’s lies and not Trumps? Is it really fair if only one side is shown?

Good ethics is to get both sides of the story, to give the public all the facts to let them make their own decisions. I believe this is the true meaning of democracy; to not be influenced by the beliefs of others but to be provided with facts and make our own minds up. Elections can be decided by citizens influenced by the thoughts of others, without getting all the facts. Many readers of newspapers fail to see the difference, or don’t think there is one, regardless of how often it is explained that an editorial board and the newsroom function independently.

I believe it is good that newspapers are choosing to stay neutral.