Over the past decade, the biggest news outlets in our country have resorted to reporting that is tainted by their journalists’ personal beliefs, regardless of political affiliation. Apparently, the virtue of objective reporting has become a thing of the past. Being a student at the Missouri School of Journalism has shown me that the main contributor that often doesn’t get the attention it deserves is the dwindling standards of journalistic ethics. In one of my core journalism classes this past semester, my professor argued that “objectivity harms,” claiming that the ideal itself is essentially dead in the media today. This claim allowed her to justify the uncritical imposition of her own beliefs on a class of nearly 200 students. The irony was hard to miss. The course, Cross Cultural Journalism, was designed to teach students how to represent different groups fairly and accurately in the media. However, it became clear during the week on International Politics and Conflict that this was not the lesson being taught. Instead of discussing the various approaches that journalists have taken to represent international powers and explain their conflicts, class was spent watching a biased documentary about a Palestinian mayor. After what can only be described as a problematic class discussion, in which my professor pushed the genocide libel and allowed classmates to yell at one another to voice opposition, she decided to invite the filmmaker for a Q&A. At one point in his discussion, the filmmaker said he wouldn’t have been able to make this film after October 7 because it was “made for an audience that no longer exists.” He explained that the documentary was made for those who were either neutral or uneducated about the complexities of the conflict, and even though many of his scenes presented opinions that demonized Israel, his attempt at objectivity during our discussion was refreshing. I could agree with him that the discourse on the conflict has lost a certain capacity for neutrality, and therefore the audience his film was intended to serve. Having a person who seemingly has strong opinions critical of Israel restrain himself from pushing his own beliefs onto a group of students gave me a chance to find common ground. My professor, however, took a different approach. Throughout the dialogue, she repeatedly inserted her own political opinions. When discussing the current status of former Palestinian mayor, Musa Hadid, she asked rhetorically, “There’s still a Ramallah?” She also repeatedly minimized Hamas’s part in the beginning of the war, often trying to shift the blame to Israel or oversimplifying the whole issue. In doing so, she transformed the class into another exercise in reinforcing preconceived anti-Israel beliefs. More importantly, it showcased the extreme bias my professor holds, her disregard for journalistic integrity, and the influence professors wield in their classrooms. My earlier negative experience of voicing an unpopular opinion convinced me to stay quiet this time around. Expressing my beliefs didn’t seem worth the trouble. If this class were taught by a responsible professor, it would have allowed for a multitude of ideas and interpretations, capitalizing on the fact that students come from different backgrounds, political ideologies, and socioeconomic statuses to simulate the kind of audience we will be writing for as prospective journalists. The lesson implicitly being taught here is that if a journalist believes strongly enough in a narrative or a specific side of an issue, the journalistic ethics we’ve been taught can be bent or altogether forgotten to fit that narrative. At best, this kind of subpar journalism produces an uninformed society. At worst, it empowers activist movements that cause more harm than good. I hope my peers eventually come to understand the power journalists hold and strive to act responsibly. All stories have more than one side, and it’s our duty as journalists to explore each perspective when forming personal beliefs. *** Leore Tal is a contributing writer for The College Fix, a Journalism and Political Science student at the University of Missouri, and an undergraduate Fellow with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA). Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of CAMERA.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** When I was 15, I drove with my mother down the road to claim my inheritance.  School was almost out in May 2021, and it was time for my first summer job. I had filled out an application online for the nearest Chick-Fil-A. As a Christian homeschooler, it was both my obligation and right to find employment at this storied institution. Despite no prior work experience and the pressures of a lingering pandemic, Chick-fil-A hired me on the spot. Last summer, while home from college, I applied to work at a different local Chick-fil-A. I was four years older, had months of experience at the other Chick-fil-A, and a year as a shift lead at a juice and smoothie shop. I didn’t even get an interview. There is plenty of discussion about how hard it is for Gen Zers to find employment after college, but for many my age, the struggles can start much sooner.  According to recent predictions from Challenger, Gray & Christmas, this summer will likely see the lowest levels of teen employment since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started tracking it. Last summer was the previous record low, with 801,000 teen jobs added. This summer, Challenger predicts employers will add only 790,000 teen jobs in the summer months. This is a far different environment for teen workers compared to the late 1970s, when almost 60% of those aged 16 to 19 had a job or were seeking one. According to Challenger, in April of this year, it was just 33.8%. Alicia Modestino, an associate professor at Northeastern University in the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, identified three changes to the labor market that led to a decline in teen employment from its 1970s high.  First, many jobs that were previously performed by teens are now automated or outsourced. Think self-checkout lanes and migrant workers mowing lawns.  Second, as states have regulated teen employment more, employers have gotten pickier. Teens are now less appealing to employers than other demographics because of hour restrictions, work permits, and more. Especially as older generations push off retirement and compete for the same part-time jobs teens once dominated, there’s now a more experienced labor pool to consider. Finally, many middle- and upper-class teens are prioritizing college résumé-boosting activities that don’t involve work: volunteering, traveling, and academics. Gen Z may learn that finding a job is not quite as easy as it used to be. As the labor market shifts, the kind of jobs teens used to work may not be as available. But I strongly believe that for those who want to make money, work is out there. Last summer, after Chick-Fil-A said no, I applied to several other places. When it seemed no one would hire me, I ended up working for a man I knew from church. He had been my family group leader on a mission trip the previous summer and we had hit it off.  This is key for Gen Zers trying to find jobs: You never know when being kind or friendly will make an impression. Acting virtuously ought to be done for its own sake, but it will naturally result in benefits. Integrity matters because it is a virtue done expecting no reward and when you think no one is looking. However, that does not mean no one ever is. Similarly, personal connection always trumps virtual connection. No matter the number of LinkedIn connections you may have, a handful of good personal connections are much more likely to turn into lasting friendships and job opportunities.  The man I worked for owned his own landscaping company, mostly focused on mowing lawns, but he also did sprinkler installations. While his crews were out mowing, he did an installation a week to bring in extra income.  My job wasn’t appealing. I dug trenches where the PVC pipe would go, and then once my boss laid the pipe, I would cover it up and pack the dirt down. Simple and exhausting. In the Texas heat, I learned the difference between a 95 and a 98-degree day.  Hard work is not something to fear. Working with one’s hands is good; it teaches humility and dependence. You earn a healthy respect for the effort it takes to perform essential manual tasks. Aside from being friendly, focusing on intentional personal connections, and being unafraid of hard work, Gen Z must continue to look to the gig economy.  As an example, one summer I did nothing else for work but make Adirondack chairs out of whiskey barrels. I would buy empty, used barrels on Facebook Marketplace, and then my dad would help me craft them and stain them. We would sell the finished chairs back on Facebook Marketplace with great margins. While not something I would pursue as a career, it was a gig that taught me some woodworking skills and made some money.  The gig economy may be a trap for Gen Z college graduates or a sign of the failed success pipeline, but it’s a smart way for teens to seek extra cash through temporary employment. Facing such a brutal job market, many in my generation are prone to blame the system that set them up for failure. Sometimes older generations lambast us with charges of laziness, seeing the system-blaming as nothing more than cope. While there is indeed much outside Gen Z’s control that has left us scrambling, and many (though not all) of the bad work ethic accusations are unjust, the correct solution is not anger but action.  The best way to prove the strength of one’s work ethic and to begin to make money as a teen is to search for a job. If the data is to be believed, they can be found. Virtuous and friendly employees are always in demand. The gig economy, especially for young people seeking temporary employment, welcomes the resourceful and thrifty.   When hard times come, outrage is one response. But the noble and productive choice is to do something, to persevere until a job is found. Not only would this flip the narrative of laziness, but it is also the path that is most likely to lead to work. The young people of today will be the leaders of tomorrow. Working as a teen gives you valuable experience, teaches life lessons, and sets you up well for a full-time job after high school. Despite the struggles and competing interests, working as a teen cultivates a skill set hard to get anywhere else. *** Cooper Cobbs (@CobbsCooper) is a 2026 Chesterton media fellow at New Guard Press. A rising junior at Patrick Henry College, he is the incoming student body president and will be the editor-in-chief of PHC’s student newspaper, the Herald, this fall.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** Hollywood celebrities’ frozen faces are damaging their performances. Fans are in an uproar over Christopher Nolan’s new movie “The Odyssey,” but this time it’s not about the casting; it’s about a skilled actress’ inability to emote after what appears to be cosmetic surgery. After seeing the trailer, a critic compared Anne Hathaway’s performance as Penelope in the movie to another role of hers years ago, concluding: “Having Botox is like a disability for actors.” In “The Odyssey” trailer, Hathaway’s character is clearly meant to appear distressed. But her face is remarkably smooth; it lacks the creases and lines Hathaway showed while crying in the 2010 movie “Love & Other Drugs.”   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by No Memes (@i_have_no_memes96_v2) Sixteen years ago, you couldn’t mistake her emotions. But if you take away the sound in “The Odyssey” trailer, it becomes difficult to understand what feeling Hathaway is trying to express. Instead of obvious hopelessness and grief, Hathaway’s character might be angry or accusing instead. This is happening all the time now. New York dermatologist Dr David Colbert got chewed out a few years ago by a director who was shooting a scene with a high-profile actor. The director scolded Colbert, who has treated famous actors such as Sienna Miller, for plumping the actor’s face “with so much filler it wouldn’t move.” In a Dazed article, culture editor Halima Jibril wonders, “Is Botox ruining cinema?” From Arianna Grande in “Wicked” to Kristen Bell in “Nobody Wants This,” actresses are failing to emote. “An actor’s main job is to convey to the audience the emotions, thoughts and feelings the character is experiencing and tweakments block the face from producing the expressions and micro-expressions which help portray these,” Jibril writes. The article also calls out Lindsey Lohan in “Irish Wish,” sharing a TikTok that shows Lohan crying — or at least trying to — but her face is so stiff that it feels rather laughable instead of moving.  @hlevin Lindsay Lohan botox Irish Wish movie #irishwish #lindsaylohan ♬ original sound – Yarden Kushnir A viral clip from “Euphoria” illustrates how desensitized we have become to cosmetic surgeries’ influence on acting. Fans pointed to Sydney Sweeney, noticing the difference between her and another actress’s performance. The clip highlights how Sweeney, who has said under a lie detector test that she has never had any work done, can actually convey emotion. One viewer commented, “with sydney’s acting you can literally see that cassie doesn’t care in her facial expressions but the other lady’s face doesn’t move at all like if you watched without sound you wouldn’t know she was mad.” the difference here is striking. actresses without botox are quickly becoming an endangered species pic.twitter.com/6HZrjGNXdh — mary morgan (@maryarchived) April 27, 2026 The difference between the two actresses is shocking: complete human emotion versus an expressionless face with only an angry tone to convey frustration. True, Sweeney’s face has lines and wrinkles, but the audience can actually feel her emotion. Facial treatments to achieve Hollywood’s brand of beauty are destroying the actors’ skills. Even slight expressions in the forehead, eyes, lips, cheeks, and brows allow the audience to feel what the actor expresses. By stifling these abilities, Botox and other treatments make actors’ performances less moving. Unfortunately, not all of these actors want these cosmetic surgeries; some are ironically forced into them for the sake of their careers. Hollywood’s immovable faces reveal its fear of “ugly.” Actors and actresses seem to believe that if their faces make one exaggerated or unattractive expression, audiences will despise them. They fear failing to meet today’s unachievable standards by maintaining a face that makes expressions that require wrinkles and lines. Even characters who are meant to be ugly — or at least not show-stopping — are played by actors with “perfect” modern features, such as Margo Robbie in “Wuthering Heights.” These actors may have perfect aesthetics, with features designed based on what is most attractive by today’s standards. But there is something lost through the procedures. These cosmetic surgeries, through removing the full range of facial expressions, strip away movies’ essential ability to connect with audiences and characters’ ability to move them. If actors continue to prioritize “perfect beauty” over real faces, they will sacrifice the rawness and realism necessary for a good story. Botox, fillers, and other cosmetic surgeries have had a dramatic effect on cinema. It’s as if Hollywood wanted to distance itself further from its viewers by making its characters not only stiff-faced but disconnected from the average audience. Movies are supposed to present stories designed to inspire and stir the viewer; the best films call people to a higher standard and morality. But how can a film be expected to move an audience if its characters can’t connect with people on a basic human level? Julie Andrews’s Oscar-nominated role in the 1965 film “The Sound of Music” exemplifies how true emotions should look on screen. When Andrews’ character, Maria, argues with Captain von Trapp, you can see the creases between her brows. Mute the sound, and the subtle differentiations in her expressions become pronounced: concern becomes frustration, which then turns into exasperation and pleading, and finally into hurt. The best actors’ emotions are etched into every wrinkle and line on their faces; that is how emotion touches us. Good performances show us how Hollywood is terrified of the truth: people are imperfect. We do not possess flawless, un-aging faces; we grow old, wrinkle, and decay. And that makes great cinema.

Leftist Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman will advance to the November mayoral election after nearly a week of counting late-arriving ballots, locking Republican Spencer Pratt out of the race. Sunday’s vote drop surged Raman past Pratt for the first time, a stunning turnaround for the leftist who trailed Pratt by more than nine points on election night. With 83% of the vote counted, incumbent Mayor Karen Bass holds 34.7%, Raman in second at 27.1% and Pratt placing third with 26.7%. Decision Desk HQ projected the race at 7:57 p.m. EDT. Decision Desk HQ projects Nithya Raman wins the second of two spots in the CA Los Angeles Mayor Nonpartisan Primary#DecisionMade: 7:57 PM EDT pic.twitter.com/PIwkJ5xxGO — Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) June 7, 2026 Pratt and Raman have been watching the returns closely since the primary election was held on June 2 to determine which of them will face off in November against Democrat incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. Pratt held a lead of nearly ten points on Election Day, but every subsequent ballot dump has favored Raman by a large margin. The projection effectively ends Pratt’s campaign, which tapped into the reality TV star’s savvy social media background to push a message of change in a city plagued by chronic challenges, including homelessness, crime and an affordability crisis. Under California’s system, the top two votegetters in the mayoral primary, regardless of party, secure a place in the November election if neither receives more than 50% of the vote. Bass already secured a spot in the runoff, according to projections. On Sunday, Pratt joined many Republicans nationwide in questioning California’s painstakingly slow vote-counting process. He responded to a social media post stating that late-arriving mail ballots had shifted the race by more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday, comparing that figure to the number of people living on the streets. “A net swing of more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday. … 43,000, huh? Where have I seen that number before? Probably nothing,” Pratt said on X. He is not alone. President Donald Trump stormed out of a ‘Meet the Press’ interview that aired Sunday over election integrity issues in California, ramping up his criticism he first expressed last week. Trump took to Truth Social late Wednesday night and again on Thursday to accuse Democrats of election fraud, asking, “Why the vote counting DELAY???” “Look what’s happening in California, the Dumocrats, right before our very eyes, are stealing the vote,” Trump posted on Thursday. Democrats deny accusations of fraud, pointing to California’s extensive vote-by-mail system and grace period for arriving ballots for the delay in results. Pratt, a victim of the devastating January 2025 wildfires, captured national attention with a stronger-than-expected debate performance and viral advertisements railing against the city’s quality of life. He attempted to reach across party lines in a deep blue city where Republicans only make up 15% of registered voters. An analysis by The New York Times found that Bass dominated South Los Angeles, while Pratt performed strongest in the Palisades and West Los Angeles. Raman, meanwhile, carried Silver Lake and much of the city’s Eastside. Raman, who is aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, launched a last-minute challenge to Bass and campaigned to peel away support from the mayor’s Left flank. On Tuesday night, she fought back tears as she addressed supporters in downtown Los Angeles. “I hope you know that everything every person in this room is fighting for in this campaign has been about building a city that’s worthy of you and every child in this city,” Raman said.

Ousted “60 Minutes” anchor Scott Pelley teared up when he claimed during a recent interview that he had “been in combat for this country.” Pelley was terminated “for cause” just days earlier by executive producer Nick Bilton, after blowing up at the network’s new leadership under Bari Weiss — and he got emotional when he responded to some of the comments President Donald Trump had made about him. WATCH: Fired 60 Minutes anchor Scott Pelley on the verge of tears: “I’ve been in combat for this country. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Kuwait. Been shot at. Spent nights in fox holes filling up with water in the desert.” pic.twitter.com/me6BJ9Eetg — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) June 7, 2026 “He also said you were part go this gang of stupid crooked people that don’t care about your country,” interviewer Lulu Garcia-Navarro prompted Pelley. “Stupid, I can take that. Stiff? Yeah, probably,” Pelley conceded, and then clearly struggled to get control of his emotions as he continued. “Don’t care about the country? I’ve never worn the uniform, but I’ve been in combat for this country. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Kuwait. Been shot at. Spent nights in fox holes filling up with water in the desert.” “I’m not aware that the President of the United States has ever done any of those things for his country,” Pelley continued, still choked up a bit as he added, “Please correct me if I’m wrong.” He went on to argue that people became journalists because they “love the First Amendment” and because they truly love the United States. “While all the other descriptions that the president used about me might be applicable, not that one,” he said, his voice breaking. During the same interview, Pelley claimed that the firings at CBS News — his and several others — were like the murders of close friends and family members.