On Jan. 21, 2020, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a Washington D.C. based nonprofit that has assisted journalists in pro-bono legal services and resources in protection of First Amendment Rights to the press since 1970, helped pass an initiative in five states (Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon and Tennessee) that will assign a lawyer specifically related to “helping journalists combat government secrecy.”

In the pursuit of the truth, journalists must jump over legal hurdles to get access to records that end up becoming financial burdens. This process can be expensive, which, in the current era of journalism, can often mean the death of a paper. However, the initiative, called the “Local Legal Initiative,” will ensure that Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon and Tennessee journalists will have free legal representation when getting these documents in order to ensure access to them and reduce the financial hassle. It’s a simple case of an equalizer against an opponent with unlimited money and resources.

This means that now, especially with political reporting, there will be more transparency, especially in an age where misinformation is at an all-time high. Not only will journalists benefit, but the country’s general population will as well, given the increased accessibility to records that show what governments are doing, and as a result, they will be held more accountable.

Certain open-access policies, like Sunshine laws and the Right-to-Know Law, were put in place to increase transparency between governing bodies and citizens, with journalists acting as the messenger. Even with these laws in place, there has still been information fallout. In 2017, the administration spent $36.2 million to defend its refusal to turn over records requested by journalists, according to the Associated Press. In over one-third of cases that year, federal employees denied journalists access to part or all records requested, effectively keeping people in the dark. 

The appointment of a First Amendment lawyer who is dedicated to exclusively aiding journalists breaks down the wall of secrecy between city hall and residents of Pennsylvania. Any and all pushback against obtaining information will be fought with stacked resources and unwavering commitment, keeping readers’ knowledge and the truth at the forefront.  

The initiative is funded by a $10 million investment from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and is meant to strengthen local journalism.

While this initiative will not necessarily impact us directly, we at The Triangle heavily appreciate how positively it will affect the Pennsylvania press and believe it is more than a step in the right direction: It is potentially one that will be the most positive for press freedom in this country.

The 92nd Academy Awards nominations were announced Monday after an already contentious kick-off to awards season. Before the reveal, the Golden Globes came under fire after, yet again, producing a list of nominees for Best Director completely comprising men. This disappointment fueled hope for the Oscars. Maybe, just maybe, the Academy would take a lesson from the ignorance of the Hollywood Foreign Press and open their minds to more thoughtful and inclusive choices. Alas, this hope was dashed the moment the nominations hit social media.

Five directors were nominated for Best Director. All of them are men.

In the past 10 years, two women have been nominated for Best Director. Over the entire 91 year history of the Oscars, only five women have ever been nominated, with only one, Kathryn Bigelow, taking home the coveted statuette.

This is especially perplexing given the many incredible films from the past year that were directed by women. Greta Gerwig’s “Little Women,” Lulu Wang’s “The Farewell,” Olivia Wilde’s “Booksmart,” Celine Sciamma’s “Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” Lorene Scafaria’s “Hustlers” and Melina Matsoukas’ “Queen and Slim” are just a handful of the many critically acclaimed films directed by women. In 2019, women accounted for 12 percent of directors working on the top 100 grossing films, according to the Celluloid Ceiling, a yearly compilation of statistics related to women’s behind-the-scenes employment.

These films not being considered for Best Director, amongst many other category snubs, not only shows Hollywood’s obvious gender bias but also their aversion to nominating films centered around women. Besides “Parasite,” the main characters in every Best Director-nominated film are men, taking up every plot with their singular perspectives. This neglectful underrepresentation at award shows indicates a troubling focus on male-dominated cinema.

These snubs also further amplify the societal standard of excluding women by ignoring their hard work as creators — despite their films frequently receiving wide recognition and praise. “Little Women” racked up nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay, but failed to give specifically Greta Gerwig acknowledgment for her direction. Not to mention, Gerwig directed “Little Women” while pregnant with her first child.

Proper recognition will require the Academy to catch up with the steady progression of the industry itself. In the past year, 40 percent of the top 100 films featured a female protagonist and 32 percent of all characters from this year’s top 500 films were women of color. Institutions like the Oscars and the Golden Globes are the areas of entertainment aggressively stuck in the past, a fact that only slows the industry’s gradual positive change.

This trend of excluding women from the Hollywood elite is one that should be protested and rejected but hopefully will change, not only with time but also with younger generations taking the reins. Though we should not be complacent in working towards an even playing field in the entertainment industry today, its slow evolution might be setting a foundation for a better future.

We’ve all been there before. In between classes, walking around, trying to figure out the next move. However, there’s little to no money in the wallet and eating at restaurants or places such as Wawa, Starbucks and 7/11 are out of the question. The end result? The food trucks. 

Yes, those iconic food trucks that are seen quite literally everywhere on campus, with a variety of cuisines that are so accessible, it can make the average person’s mouth foam like a rabid dog’s.

But this is all in the eyes of students. To people such as members of Drexel administration, they are a symbol of resistance and a damper on “public safety and related traffic conditions.” And, as a result, on Dec. 12, a law was proposed by the City Council of Philadelphia, with support from Drexel, that would have shut down every food truck on the 3300 Market Street block.

Soon after the proposal, students mobilized and created an online petition to save the classic quick-bite spots. The petition gained traction fast with over 7,300 signatures. Food trucks are a staple on campus, and the possibility of them being taken away sparked outrage throughout the campus neighborhood.  

The food trucks mean a lot to the students. More than being part of the flurry of color and smells that make up our walks around campus, they provide a variety of cheap food options that are fairly hard to come by in the city. Most food trucks offer a substantial amount of food close to campus at a higher quality and cheaper price than it’s available elsewhere, if it is at all.

Around these parts, school spirit is hard to come by. It’s obvious that we lack the unique campus feeling that other schools have the privilege of naturally having. In an eternal drought of Drexel culture, food trucks give us a drop of life.

On top of that, food trucks are how small businesses have managed to remain and thrive in the university space. It’s no secret that Drexel is a force of gentrification in West Philly and has had a storied history of either directly or indirectly forcing small businesses out of their locations and often out of business. Food trucks have allowed small, family-owned businesses to continue to exist and allow the owners of those businesses to build connections with students.

Luckily, Mayor Jim Kenney used his veto power and saved the food trucks. However, it is safe to say this will not be the last time Drexel will try to rid student institutions of them in the name of safety and traffic. Only time will tell how this saga will continue.

We have been proud and fortunate to carry on the tradition of The Triangle for many years now, and we could not have more pride in what our writers and staff have put out in that time, especially in an age when The Triangle — and journalism at large — has drastically changed in presentation style and overall perception.

The student body was shocked to find out The Triangle bottomed-out financially a year ago. The media landscape had changed, but we had not. Our feeling of desperation was a wake-up call.

We were tasked with solving a complicated real-world business and news-media debacle. The Triangle needed to make fundamental changes in order to progress. One improvement would be to diversify the delivery of our content to keep up with changing times.

Disinterest in printed news is a problem not unique to The Triangle. According to Pew, the average readership of weekly print newspapers in America has decreased from 40 million in 2014 to 28.5 million in 2018, nearly a 30 percent drop in four years.

The reasons stem from the reliance on technology. As print readership has decreased, online readership has increased in that same period from 8.2 million in 2014 to 11.6 million in 2018.

So, starting our first week of Winter Quarter, an initiative will be launched focusing on digital content. After three years of pitching, and almost a year of work, we can now say that this division, called “Tri-Pod” (Triangle Podcasting), is ready, spearheaded by our own Armon Owlia.

Podcasting, Owlia feels, is an excellent way of releasing The Triangle in a way more readers can enjoy. Over the years, he conceived various podcasts that crossed the lines into multiple sections, each picking a particular topic or story and expanding. In 2016, he approached the then editor-in-chief with a pitch for a Triangle officiated podcast. However, he was quickly turned down, because The Triangle was concerned that there wouldn’t be enough money or potential audience for a podcast. Therefore, the idea was put on the backburner.

It’s essential to note that podcasts have slowly become much more popular, rising from being listened to by 11 percent of all Americans in 2006 to 51 percent of all Americans in 2019, with that number continuing to increase.

In other words, we could potentially boost our university audience by podcasting, thus encouraging involvement with The Triangle both internally and externally.

The Triangle will now start streaming podcasts, beginning with the debut of interview program “Last Call” on Jan. 10, 2020. Hosted by Owlia, it will focus on bringing diverse and exciting guests for interviews over their favorite drinks, with more updates to be given during winter break, and more podcasts following “Last Call” will begin airing in Spring Quarter.

However, we still want the help of the Drexel student community. Together, we can create work that better emphasizes and expresses the mentality of the Drexel community and create more entertaining and informative programming. If you want more information on how you could host your own Tri-Pod, feel free to reach out to apply@thetriangle.org

Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines and turn on the mics. We’re hot, live and ready to go.

As journalists, it is our moral and civil obligation to report the truth, no matter how small or inconsequential. This profession used to be highly respected, with some of this country’s biggest trailblazers choosing it, such as Mark Twain, Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

In the age of Trump, where truth has gone out the window, the perception of news media has drastically changed to that of a supposed national enemy, one where sensitive people can get easily hurt by basic practices.

Case in point: Nov. 10, Northwestern University’s student-run newspaper, the Daily Northwestern, apologized for conducting simple journalistic practices and “contributing to the harm students experienced” after covering protests on the Northwestern campus against former Attorney General and the current Republican candidate in the Alabama senate race, Jeff Sessions.

Within days, journalists from the Washington Post and the New York Times and even Northwestern alumni came out against the Daily’s apology, saying that it was unnecessary to apologize for a common practice such as contacting people via phone numbers found in the directory to schedule future interviews and publishing photos of the protest, all in the name of privacy and better security for students in the protests.

In public, no one is legally entitled to their own image — photographers have the right to publish photos of people in public. Protest is rarely anonymous and usually indicates a sense of pride in attendance. Considering these factors, journalists covering a protest have no reason to blur faces or cherry-pick photos.

As reporters, we are well aware of making sure to report responsibly without putting people’s lives and welfares at stake, especially at a school such as Northwestern in the Chicago region, where activism has been well-documented, and, in 1970, four Vietnam War protestors were shot and killed by members of the National Guard on the campus of Kent State.

However, even taking all of these past events into account, that does not excuse the apology for basic journalistic practices. Both protests and student directories are matters of public record and, therefore, easily accessible information that journalists would be foolish not to use as a resource. To call it an invasion of privacy is utter nonsense, when, in reality, what it should be called is “good journalism.”

Many riders were unaware of a big change in Philadelphia public transportation that took place this past April. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) decriminalized fare evasion so quietly that most people didn’t even catch it on social media. Obviously, it makes sense that they wouldn’t want to widely advertise this, as it would incentivize riders to start evading fares more purposefully, but this change is a significant one.

Previously, fare evasion on SEPTA was a criminal offense. The punishment for jumping the turnstile or slipping in through the disability entrance was a $300 fine and a criminal charge on your record. Now, SEPTA’s policy is a $25 fine, 10 times the price of the normal $2.50 fare. Although there are no longer arrests or criminal charges associated with fare evasion, SEPTA  implemented a strike system where if you are caught evading the fare four times, you are banned from SEPTA and charged with a misdemeanor.

This is particularly interesting considering what is currently happening with the Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA) in New York. Recently, the MTA has been under heavy fire for cracking down on violations. Videos have gone viral of an increased police presence by turnstiles and some stories have blown up, such as a woman selling churros being arrested. These events are a result of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s new MTA Capital Plan, which includes adding 500 new police officers to the MTA to address homelessness and “quality of life” issues.

Obviously, these are New York issues, which are well removed from Philadelphia and SEPTA, let alone students at Drexel University, but this is important to us for two big reasons. First, power abuse like this is rampant and could easily happen here in Philly. Second, we need to understand and appreciate why SEPTA’s policy change is a good thing.

To address the first point, SEPTA and the Philadelphia Police Department are no angels. Just reference the original policy. Up until April of this year, evading a $2.50 fare resulted in a $300 dollar fine and a criminal charge. That’s a 120-times increase in what someone is forced to pay when the likely reason they are skipping the fare in the first place is that they can’t afford it. While this policy change is a good one, the original has, no doubt, already harmed many individuals.

And on the second point, if people are skipping the fare on the subway, it’s rarely because they are lazy or cheap. It’s because they have to. The median household income in Philadelphia is $39,759. That’s to support a whole family. Consider that many people have to take public transport to get to work. That’s two rides a day, five days a week, let’s say 50 weeks a year. That’s going to be about $1,250 in fares a year just for getting to and from work. That’s money that could be spent investing in education for your children, food for the table or really anything that isn’t a public good that could be paid for with taxes.

Those fare charges add up and many skip payment because they need every penny to survive. In a world where wages are stagnant and living expenses are rapidly increasing, we can’t slap insane fines on people for just trying to save money. In the end, all that does is make things worse. We need to put aside our thirst for revenge and focus on rehabilitation and addressing these issues at a deeper level. This move by SEPTA is a step closer to that.

Jannie Blackwell, who has represented West Philadelphia and University City on the city council for nearly 27 years, was unseated by newcomer Jamie Gauthier in Tuesday’s election. You have no doubt seen Gauthier’s campaign posters plastered all over and around campus. Blackwell has most recently come under fire for her policies and involvement towards real estate development in West Philadelphia, some of which include developments near Drexel’s campus and even Drexel’s own developments. Gauthier, on the other hand, ran her campaign on anti-gentrification and fighting to keep long-time residents in their homes, in what she calls the “Empowerment Agenda.”

So what does this entail for Drexel and its student body? While we certainly love to make our John A. Fry gentrification memes and post them all over the web for likes, the inconvenient truth is that Drexel students like us are very often a driving factor for the gentrification, rather than the new buildings on campus.

While the large incoming classes have forced students into the surrounding neighborhoods, students opting to live in Powelton Village and Mantua areas for less expensive rent is nothing new. Long-term renters are often said to be subsequently pushed out as landlords tailor their properties to more lucrative students.

While stopping or slowing gentrification might sound good on paper, it will ultimately hurt students. The rhetoric surrounding the topic has already led to Drexel’s administration to consider tightening housing policies to restrict students from living off campus. Forcing students into Drexel housing means putting an even greater financial burden on them.

However, this seems to be the sad truth of a college campus located in the city. When such a large establishment is built in such a diverse area, people need to get moved in order to fit the paying customers of the university. This may seem upsetting, but it is the way the American education system is set up. The City of Philadelphia gave Drexel the land because they paid the money for it, and that has resulted in the surrounding people having no choice but to leave. Furthermore, when such an institution is put up, it will evidently need to expand due to demand. As a non-profit, Drexel funnels that money into more land purchases, which leads to more people leaving their homes.  

There comes a point where the needs of the University conflict with the needs of the city we live in. As representatives of the student body and the University, it falls on our shoulders to do what we can to foster the community in which we live. That’s not to say you should have to pay upwards of $1,000 a month to have a roof over your head, but you should be aware of the effects we have on displacing families that have lived in this area for generations. Yes, the university and city need to protect these people, but there isn’t much we can do to immediately change the university’s actions or government policy. It’s on us to find ways to give back and be respectful and accommodating wherever we can. Maybe we can reach out to Gauthier and attempt to build a relationship in attempts to help her achieve her vision.

As for what Gauthier’s election means, that remains to be seen. Her background in urban planning could mean she’ll make well informed decisions for her district. But will the well being of university students be factored into those decisions?

Jannie Blackwell, who has represented West Philadelphia and University City on the city council for nearly 27 years, was unseated by newcomer Jamie Gauthier in Tuesday’s election. You have no doubt seen Gauthier’s campaign posters plastered all over and around campus. Blackwell has most recently come under fire for her policies and involvement towards real estate development in West Philadelphia, some of which include developments near Drexel’s campus and even Drexel’s own developments. Gauthier, on the other hand, ran her campaign on anti-gentrification and fighting to keep long-time residents in their homes, in what she calls the “Empowerment Agenda.”

So what does this entail for Drexel and its student body? While we certainly love to make our John A. Fry gentrification memes and post them all over the web for likes, the inconvenient truth is that Drexel students like us are very often a driving factor for the gentrification, rather than the new buildings on campus.

While the large incoming classes have forced students into the surrounding neighborhoods, students opting to live in Powelton Village and Mantua areas for less expensive rent is nothing new. Long-term renters are often said to be subsequently pushed out as landlords tailor their properties to more lucrative students.

While stopping or slowing gentrification might sound good on paper, it will ultimately hurt students. The rhetoric surrounding the topic has already led to Drexel’s administration to consider tightening housing policies to restrict students from living off campus. Forcing students into Drexel housing means putting an even greater financial burden on them.

However, this seems to be the sad truth of a college campus located in the city. When such a large establishment is built in such a diverse area, people need to get moved in order to fit the paying customers of the university. This may seem upsetting, but it is the way the American education system is set up. The City of Philadelphia gave Drexel the land because they paid the money for it, and that has resulted in the surrounding people having no choice but to leave. Furthermore, when such an institution is put up, it will evidently need to expand due to demand. As a non-profit, Drexel funnels that money into more land purchases, which leads to more people leaving their homes.  

There comes a point where the needs of the University conflict with the needs of the city we live in. As representatives of the student body and the University, it falls on our shoulders to do what we can to foster the community in which we live. That’s not to say you should have to pay upwards of $1,000 a month to have a roof over your head, but you should be aware of the effects we have on displacing families that have lived in this area for generations. Yes, the university and city need to protect these people, but there isn’t much we can do to immediately change the university’s actions or government policy. It’s on us to find ways to give back and be respectful and accommodating wherever we can. Maybe we can reach out to Gauthier and attempt to build a relationship in attempts to help her achieve her vision.

As for what Gauthier’s election means, that remains to be seen. Her background in urban planning could mean she’ll make well informed decisions for her district. But will the well being of university students be factored into those decisions?

Jannie Blackwell, who has represented West Philadelphia and University City on the city council for nearly 27 years, was unseated by newcomer Jamie Gauthier in Tuesday’s election. You have no doubt seen Gauthier’s campaign posters plastered all over and around campus. Blackwell has most recently come under fire for her policies and involvement towards real estate development in West Philadelphia, some of which include developments near Drexel’s campus and even Drexel’s own developments. Gauthier, on the other hand, ran her campaign on anti-gentrification and fighting to keep long-time residents in their homes, in what she calls the “Empowerment Agenda.”

So what does this entail for Drexel and its student body? While we certainly love to make our John A. Fry gentrification memes and post them all over the web for likes, the inconvenient truth is that Drexel students like us are very often a driving factor for the gentrification, rather than the new buildings on campus.

While the large incoming classes have forced students into the surrounding neighborhoods, students opting to live in Powelton Village and Mantua areas for less expensive rent is nothing new. Long-term renters are often said to be subsequently pushed out as landlords tailor their properties to more lucrative students.

While stopping or slowing gentrification might sound good on paper, it will ultimately hurt students. The rhetoric surrounding the topic has already led to Drexel’s administration to consider tightening housing policies to restrict students from living off campus. Forcing students into Drexel housing means putting an even greater financial burden on them.

However, this seems to be the sad truth of a college campus located in the city. When such a large establishment is built in such a diverse area, people need to get moved in order to fit the paying customers of the university. This may seem upsetting, but it is the way the American education system is set up. The City of Philadelphia gave Drexel the land because they paid the money for it, and that has resulted in the surrounding people having no choice but to leave. Furthermore, when such an institution is put up, it will evidently need to expand due to demand. As a non-profit, Drexel funnels that money into more land purchases, which leads to more people leaving their homes.  

There comes a point where the needs of the University conflict with the needs of the city we live in. As representatives of the student body and the University, it falls on our shoulders to do what we can to foster the community in which we live. That’s not to say you should have to pay upwards of $1,000 a month to have a roof over your head, but you should be aware of the effects we have on displacing families that have lived in this area for generations. Yes, the university and city need to protect these people, but there isn’t much we can do to immediately change the university’s actions or government policy. It’s on us to find ways to give back and be respectful and accommodating wherever we can. Maybe we can reach out to Gauthier and attempt to build a relationship in attempts to help her achieve her vision.

As for what Gauthier’s election means, that remains to be seen. Her background in urban planning could mean she’ll make well informed decisions for her district. But will the well being of university students be factored into those decisions?

Jannie Blackwell, who has represented West Philadelphia and University City on the city council for nearly 27 years, was unseated by newcomer Jamie Gauthier in Tuesday’s election. You have no doubt seen Gauthier’s campaign posters plastered all over and around campus. Blackwell has most recently come under fire for her policies and involvement towards real estate development in West Philadelphia, some of which include developments near Drexel’s campus and even Drexel’s own developments. Gauthier, on the other hand, ran her campaign on anti-gentrification and fighting to keep long-time residents in their homes, in what she calls the “Empowerment Agenda.”

So what does this entail for Drexel and its student body? While we certainly love to make our John A. Fry gentrification memes and post them all over the web for likes, the inconvenient truth is that Drexel students like us are very often a driving factor for the gentrification, rather than the new buildings on campus.

While the large incoming classes have forced students into the surrounding neighborhoods, students opting to live in Powelton Village and Mantua areas for less expensive rent is nothing new. Long-term renters are often said to be subsequently pushed out as landlords tailor their properties to more lucrative students.

While stopping or slowing gentrification might sound good on paper, it will ultimately hurt students. The rhetoric surrounding the topic has already led to Drexel’s administration to consider tightening housing policies to restrict students from living off campus. Forcing students into Drexel housing means putting an even greater financial burden on them.

However, this seems to be the sad truth of a college campus located in the city. When such a large establishment is built in such a diverse area, people need to get moved in order to fit the paying customers of the university. This may seem upsetting, but it is the way the American education system is set up. The City of Philadelphia gave Drexel the land because they paid the money for it, and that has resulted in the surrounding people having no choice but to leave. Furthermore, when such an institution is put up, it will evidently need to expand due to demand. As a non-profit, Drexel funnels that money into more land purchases, which leads to more people leaving their homes.  

There comes a point where the needs of the University conflict with the needs of the city we live in. As representatives of the student body and the University, it falls on our shoulders to do what we can to foster the community in which we live. That’s not to say you should have to pay upwards of $1,000 a month to have a roof over your head, but you should be aware of the effects we have on displacing families that have lived in this area for generations. Yes, the university and city need to protect these people, but there isn’t much we can do to immediately change the university’s actions or government policy. It’s on us to find ways to give back and be respectful and accommodating wherever we can. Maybe we can reach out to Gauthier and attempt to build a relationship in attempts to help her achieve her vision.

As for what Gauthier’s election means, that remains to be seen. Her background in urban planning could mean she’ll make well informed decisions for her district. But will the well being of university students be factored into those decisions?