For what is really happening to America’s media fairness, compiled by the international non-profit third-party organization Reporters Without Borders - RSF (Reporters Sans Frontières)’ team based out of Paris, France, are annual reports and statistics about the freedom of press in different countries. According to their data, out of 53 journalists killed this year so far, six have been American. For the most part, the reason(s) for the U.S. killings don’t seem to be politically motivated. One instance as reported by the Baltimore Sun on July 29 was because a long-time reader who, the previous day, was still angry about an article written about him in 2011, tried to shoot everyone in the Capital Gazette Annapolis newsroom.

The American RSF Press Freedom Ranking is currently in 45th place with an index score of 23.73, compared to other countries such as first place Norway with 7.63, and Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, and Jamaica all have scores under 12 -- more than twice as favorable of index rating for press freedom. The ranking of 45, is a negligible two-places worse from last year’s score; the best recorded rank for the United States was 32nd place in 2013.

While complicated methodologies and index scores said one thing, a write-up next to the U.S. country profile described another picture, “US press freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment to the 1787 constitution, has been under increasing attack over the past few years, and the first year of President Donald J. Trump's presidency has fostered further decline in journalists' right to report."

As the U.S. President was blamed for trying to silence the press, the write-up continued, pointing out, “He (Trump) has declared the press an enemy of the American people in a series of verbal attacks toward journalists, attempted to block White House access to multiple media outlets, and routinely uses the term “fake news” in retaliation for critical reporting. He has even called for revoking certain media outlets’ broadcasting licenses.” Further into the report suggests that the highest level of the US government, giving “violent anti-press rhetoric” has actually worked against the real news and free press, which who can partially be determined by the Media Bias/Fact Check website, that says it’s the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet with over 2500+ sources documented and actively updated. Not only are MBFC sources compared with various degrees of left-right wing bias, they also mention the factuality of sources' writing. The description for their “least bias” category said, “these sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources.”

Check on the media freedom in your country. Also look up the media bias for your news sources! More information is available at the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker website.

This isn't official advice from a lawyer, but after reading articles/reports about varying court decisions, it doesn't take a lawyer to see that loosely-enforced copyright laws regarding "fair use" are clear as mud. Supposedly, it is legal to photograph and film people without their permission, but only as long as they aren't the sole focus of the content. Ultimately, legality becomes an issue when the intentions and effects/results of content use cause damages or losses to the rightsholder(s). Someone else's copyright image(s) or exhibits are not the main part of this article. The factual captions below the images attempt to demonstrate various ways to (without needing permission) fairly use copyright images and other content for your articles.

In report writing, it is generally understood that each sentence, paragraph, and/or claim should be looked at individually and written credibly as a fact. For example, explicit permission is not required to fairly and simply state the fact that author Jane Friedman, and creator of article, A Writer’s Guide to Permissions and Fair Use, said, “you have to consider, for each use, whether or not it’s necessary to seek explicit, legal permission from the work’s creator or owner,” however; the writer’s guide and author, were still referenced/stated in "good faith" and credited. An italicized note said, “Remember that crediting the source does not remove the obligation to seek permission.” When something might not fall into the fair-use category, then experts agree to seek permission(s).

Is the content being stated as a fact? Titles, names, companies, and places are facts. When presented, interpreted, and credited, things other people said and their images also become stated facts for others to include and further analyze. Scribbling your name on someone else's work (claiming it’s yours) is lying, illegal, and unfair. Legal fair use is to identify/reference someone else and their work (attribution) and then (with your name) add more/do extra work to interpret it (commentary/criticism and/or parody of copyright material for a limited and transformative purpose).

Try to find examples of how others widely use the same content or same type of content. Businesses have different stances, however; since it can be difficult and expensive to follow up every case, as long as an instance doesn't become the company's biggest problem, there probably won’t be a lawsuit filed, however; by fairly crediting sources, and being a team player, it is easier to earn industry respect. The Associated Press said, "You are solely responsible for determining whether or not "fair use" or similar doctrines apply in various jurisdictions and/or whether any permissions, licenses, clearances and/or releases are required in connection with any proposed use of the Content. If You are unsure, You are responsible for contacting competent legal counsel." Do not source from uncredited photos/media or steal paid stock photo content. Some free stock photos that usually do not require attribution are available on sites such as Pexels and MorgueFile. Also visit the Creative Commons search page for seemingly limitless amounts of more free content, often with no attribution requirements from CC image sites like Pixabay, ClipSafari, and Flickr. 

Links updated: 2020-01-02

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “the freedom of press, protected by the First Amendment, is critical to a democracy (or other form of government in which the people have power) and the government is accountable to the people.” It is generally understood that a free press was decided to prevent the government from interfering with distribution of information and opinions. Peter Millett, Libya, Tripoli Ambassador from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth office wrote that the media’s, “role is to inform, criticise and stimulate debate. The backbone of any democracy is an independent, professional and responsible media.” The ACLU also added, “a free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing.” Over the last two-hundred years, U.S. free press laws have also changed several times.

The widely-accepted (at the time) Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to modernize the last communications act of 1934. Michael Corcoran, journalist from Truthout, wrote, “Twenty years later the devastating impact of the legislation is undeniable: About 90 percent of the country’s major media companies are owned by six corporations.” According to Peter DiCola and Kristin Thomson, in a report from the Future of Music Coalition, suggested that for decades in some places media consolidation has been so extreme, that the largest four firms in most markets have controlled 70-90 percent of the market share (or more).

The concern affecting the U.S. free press isn’t only seen through news outlet media consolidation, but it’s also heard with radio, which every week, “reaches nearly 95 percent of the U.S. population over the age of 12.” Corcoran explained, “In 1995, before the Telecommunications Act was passed, companies were not allowed to own more than 40 radio stations.” DiCola and Thomson continued, “since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Clear Channel [now called iHeartMedia] has grown from 40 stations to 1,240 stations – 30 times more than congressional regulation previously allowed.”

These kinds of changes, experts suggest, have opened the flood gates for monopolistic competition, because the with the increased fees, infrastructure costs, and licensing requirements, etc., the raised barriers to enter the market actually have made it tougher for new emerging sources to join. John F. Kennedy said that “knowledge is power,” and quoted Thomas Jefferson seeming to further suggest that as long as everyone is enlightened/educated with information, then everyone (people) can make the right choices to protect freedom.

In another part of his speech, he said, "no President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed." Read Kennedy’s full speech at the JFK Library Website.

2018's fashion month consists of many notable events around the world. Runway shows revealing possibilities for tomorrow's trends are often the highlight. Telegraph reporters, Rosie Boydell and Anisha Parbhakar Brown claimed, "fashion editors and the street style crew are busy packing their cases for a month on the road," because after this week, which is New York Fashion Week, the celebration of style and fashion continues throughout the rest of the month at other major cities such as London, England (UK), Milan (Italy), and Paris (France).

It was a night of fashion on the runway and in the front row. USA Today's Anika Reed said that there were, "A-list celebrities on hand to help ring in the first day of New York Fashion Week at the Tom Ford runway show." Ford’s focus, as mentioned in his show notes said he feels that, “fashion has somehow lost its way a bit, and it is easy for all of us to be swept up in trends that have lost touch with what women and men want to actually wear,"

Often runway shows, for many reasons, welcome other non-performing models and friends of models/those involved. The feel of lightning often can fill the air as new ideas are tried out in public. Drama and other aspects can steer the mood for better or worse --  songs over the loudspeakers accentuate a catwalk, just as certain outfit designs can actually be more amazing than in theory. Personalities react to impressions of the outfits, sometimes forgetting how tough it can be to make clothing fit, and that models are often wearing clothes designed by others, not necessarily always ones that they chose themselves. Attendents make hot and cold waves interpreting the most "now and tomorrow" outfit designs.

To wrap up Day 1 of New York Fashion Week, Gigi Hadid closed Tom Ford's runway show with a twirl. (Photo: ANGELA WEISS, AFP/Getty Images)