Author: Devon Williams

The Translation of International Talent in the American Job Market

Devon Williams

Professor Amos

JRN 449: International News

11 October 2026

The Translation of International Talent in the American Job Market

 

In 2016, Syrian data analyst Almothana Alhamoud told NPR reporter Deborah Amos that one of the most difficult parts of transitioning into the American workforce was learning how to market one’s skills and past international work experience.

“To learn to sell yourself, that’s the hard part, it’s the work culture thing here,” Alhamoud told Amos.

Alhamoud came to America with a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering and experience as a data analyst for Syria’s Agriculture Ministry. His first American job was as a nightshift cashier, until Upwardly Global, a nonprofit that helps work-authorized immigrants and refugees reenter professional careers in the U.S., became his pathway to a more fitting job in IT.

Now ten years later, the cultural problem Amos documented has broadened. Audra Brown, National Director of Employment Services at Upwardly Global, said the organization still helps job seekers “translate their experience into the U.S. job market,” while also “working with employers to make sure they understand how to evaluate immigrant talent.”

The Migration Policy Institute reports that about 20 percent, roughly 2.1 million, of college-educated immigrants were unemployed or working low-skilled jobs in 2022, as opposed to 16 percent of U.S.-born college graduates. Similarly, foreign-born workers composed 19.1 percent of the U.S. labor force in 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but still were less likely than American-born workers to hold managerial or professional positions.

Upwardly Global describes this difficulty in details as small as how an applicant describes past accomplishments.

“Many of our job seekers come from collectivist cultures, where when you’re going for a job, you’re talking more about ‘what my team did and what my duties were,’” said Brown. American hiring culture, she described, expects achievements to be described individualistically: “‘I did this. I made this impact.’”

Even “becoming comfortable speaking about their own work and self-advocacy is a cultural nuance that they need to practice,” Brown said.

Networking also is a challenge for participants who come from professional backgrounds where a credential leads directly to a career, said Brown, without the necessary secondary connection of marketing oneself to others. International CVs, in contrast to American resumes, can include photographs and several pages of information that would be unusual on a standard American resume, and this format discrepancy is vital with the rise of AI hiring practices.

Fiona Maazel, Upwardly Global’s interim Vice President of Marketing and Communications, said recruiters are facing an application pool inundated with AI-generated material.

“AI has opened the floodgates, and now you’re getting a bajillion resumes that AI has produced,” Maazel said. “You might be screening out really valuable talent, but also you’re overwhelmed.” These AI systems working to select candidates for interviews can filter out international talent when their applications do not fit the American models they are trained on.

“ATS and AI screening tools might automatically discount someone because their background doesn’t… fit the U.S. experience,” Brown said. Employers may overlook a foreign degree, an unfamiliar company name or a career uncommon in American applications.

That has given Upwardly Global the task of certifying that these candidates are still worth consideration when their applications can be less familiar.

“These are highly trained professionals who have been vetted by us,” Maazel said. “We can vouch for them. These are real people.”

Brown stated that Upwardly Global is employing AI on their end as well by building AI-enabled resume and interview practice tools because existing products are “not necessarily tested or built with an immigrant professional in mind.” It also reorganized its resume guidance around the skills that automated screening systems search for and avoid that which it is trained to reject.

Brown says these employment disparities and barriers still vary widely according to profession, English ability, immigration history, and extent of displacement. About 40 percent of Upwardly Global’s participants, she said, are refugees or asylees, some of whom arrive after years outside their professions or without documents needed to verify their past professional credentials.

Migration Policy Institute research in 2019 has identified English proficiency, race, and legal status as influential predictors of whether college-educated immigrants work below their skill level. In one analysis, 55 percent of immigrants with very limited English were underemployed, compared with 15 percent of those who were fully proficient.

Federal immigration policy is similarly making employment status more unstable for many workers. President Donald Trump suspended most refugee admissions in January 2025, and the United States only admitted 16,292 refugees in fiscal year 2026, compared to the more than 100,000 admitted in fiscal 2024. Beginning October 30, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security ended automatic extensions of employment authorization documents (EADs) in certain categories, with limited exceptions.

Mary Lee, Upwardly Global’s director of employer engagement, said it is a “common misperception” that immigrants, refugees, and asylees necessarily require employers to sponsor visas. Upwardly Global now advises eligible job seekers to write “fully work-authorized” at the top of their resumes to preempt that incorrect assumption.

The organization is also seeing participants face interruptions in work authorization due to new renewal requirements. “Sometimes it creates a gap,” Brown said.

Now that there are fewer pathways for migrants to enter the U.S., “we’re starting to see our demographic shifting to people who’ve been here longer, who have been out of the professional workforce longer,” she continued.

For Maazel, reduced immigration makes it “even more pressing, I think, and more valuable,” to aid skilled immigrants already in the country in their search for employment.

While ‘selling oneself’ is still a necessary missing skill taught at Upwardly Global, the organization now faces the more complex problems of AI screening, credential recognition, and changing work-authorization rules. The onus now falls to employers to learn how to ‘translate’ international experience and backgrounds into a U.S. lens and to train automatic hiring systems to do the same.

Reading Blog 10/12

by Devon Williams

While reading The New Censorship, I was struck by how much of the current distrust in the media, fueled by populist political leaders, ties into key psychology frameworks of groupthink and manipulative mental control. Panievsky repeatedly states that one of the main ways that these extremist figures gain unlikely power is through hours and hours of airtime. Whether it is through social media soundbites or repeated interviews with a variety of outlets regardless of their perceived political leaning, the main thing these figures need is to be visible (68). Their actual policy is nearly negligible in these interactions– it is their inflammatory nature and the reaction they are able to garner from journalists and the audience alike that causes their visibility to increase seemingly exponentially. In psychology, this concept is called the mere exposure effect– the more someone sees something/someone or hears a certain ideology, the more likely it is that they a) normalize it b) perceive it as a popular and wide held belief in their community and the world and/or c) begin to sympathize with it themselves. These politicians are capitalizing on the fact that the human brain learns and interacts with the world through familiarity, and it is that familiarity that over time numbs people to extremism and later could cause them to believe in it.

Panievsky echoes this sentiment, stating that “political elites tend to over-estimate how right-wing or conservative the public actually is” (71) and extends this tendency to the public and to journalists themselves. Left-leaning people tend to overestimate the most, she continues, as a form of ‘overcorrection’ for what they believe their own bias to be. Conservatives, however, do the opposite, yet still lean towards a belief right-wing beliefs and extremism are more common than they actually are. This is because “those more vocal are perceived to be more numerous” (73), highlighting another psychological principle: availability bias. We have already established that the most extremist and right wing figures currently are doing their best to be on air as much as possible, attempting to become unavoidable in the public ethos. This constant exposure means that when one thinks of politics, their mind employs a heuristic (a mental ‘shortcut’ to grasp large or abstract concepts and create a quick judgement on a situation) to decide what they have heard recently, how often, and from whom. Heuristics are employed by the brain more often than not; a person likely won’t think long and hard about every single video they have seen, count the numbers, account for social media targeting etc. when considering the current political atmosphere in a short span of time. They will attach to whatever appears first in their mind, and with the inundation of content from extremists, they will likely guess that those beliefs are more common, widespread, and representative than they actually are just because they are most ‘available’ in memory.

These two concepts in tandem — the mere exposure effect and availability bias — produce another interesting effect within an individual. The perception that extremism is more common and accepted by your surrounding society will push you to be more open to it and to participate in it more willingly as a way to fit in with the perceived ‘group’ as a form of self preservation. If it is greater acceptance of hate speech, voicing racist and biased opinions more often, or even not objecting to that cruelty and extremism is a result of this powerful effect (80-81). These conditions together allow extremist figures to gain a platform, convince us their views are wide-held and ‘normal’, all while convincing you to accept it or drift closer to that same extremism for what your brain believes to be self preservation by remaining with the in-group. The only way that extremism can be combatted by a society is to be aware not only of the fact that those views are not normal or accepted but also why exactly people react to them the way they do through our brains’ hard-wiring.

Berlin Project Memo (Williams)

Devon Williams

Berlin Project Memo (Draft)

 

For my Berlin project, I want to focus on how Syrian women have chosen to integrate (or not integrate) into German culture and belonging, examining first a woman centered community garden in Neukölln as a location starting point. I am interested to know if religion shapes this process of integration either positively or negatively as well as the initial immigration process itself. I do not want to enter into reporting assuming this to be a specific issue, however, so I will shape this angle based on conversations I have with women I meet in the garden and asking them what their lives look like in Berlin and what impacts their sense of belonging and self there.

 

This primary reporting site is the Hevrîn Xelef medicinal-herb garden, run by Flamingo e.V. on the former St. Jacobi cemetery in Neukölln. Flamingo is a Berlin-based nonprofit association that focused on support for refugee women, created the garden in 2019 as a transcultural women-centered space connected to the women’s village Jinwar in northeastern Syria, creating a haven of culture, language, and gender for this migrant population within Germany. The garden provides community members with gardening experience, horticultural knowledge, exchange, remembrance, and support for women with experiences of migration and displacement across all places of origin. The garden is also currently the basis of the Humboldt Forum exhibition Dara Tûyê – The Mulberry Tree: Feminist Voices on War and Gardens, which runs from Nov. 29, 2025 through Aug. 30, 2027 and focuses on women, displacement, violence, healing, and cross-border solidarity.

 

Syrian women are my chosen population because they are the subject of diverging German policy. In 2025, it was reported that 7,548 former Syrian citizens were naturalized in Berlin, meaning that Syrians were the largest immigrant group receiving citizenship that year. In contrast, the federal government has recently been promoting return to Syria for some of these immigrants. Chancellor Friederich Merz met Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa on March 30 of this year, with Merz stating that changing conditions in Syria meant protection needs would have to be reassessed and to emphasize creating a realistic plan for Syrian return. On September 21, 2026, the Interior Ministry echoed that Syrian protection statuses could be reviewed in the medium term if conditions continued to stabilize yet also stressed that removal decisions remain ‘individual.’

 

This parallel drives me to the question of how Syrian women approach integration after spending years learning the language and building lives in Berlin while German politics are increasingly discussing the possibility of a return to Syria.

 

The recent suspension of ordinary family reunification policies under Section 36a for people with subsidiary protection beginning July 24, 2025 through July 23, 2027, which could make family separation extremely urgent and difficult for those currently residing in Germany, would also be a possible topic of interest to explore within this framework of gender, religion, and race in Berlin. Access to integration courses was also curtailed when in December 2025, BAMF stopped granting new voluntary admissions to specific categories of migrants without an automatic entitlement. Berlin’s Senate Commissioner Katarina Niewiedzial said in February 2026 that this could eliminate roughly 8,000 places in integration courses in the city. 

 

In terms of religion, I want to ask Muslim and non-Muslim Syrian women what role faith plays within their community in Germany, whether that is in insular Syrian immigrant communities or the broader multicultural landscape of Berlin itself. I want to investigate if presenting visibly Muslim impacts these migrants’ interaction with the largely non-Muslim city and what support Muslim immigrant institutions and centers of faith provide for those living within that culturally foreign context. I would like to speak to people who vary by age, religious affiliation, profession, family situation, length of residency in Germany, and immigration status if possible.

 

My plan during the trip to Berlin would be to interview many women with differing backgrounds at the garden, and use those conversations to hone in on specific issues most pertinent to them at this specific moment in time. I would then speak to immigration advocates, researchers, women’s and faith organizations, and government officials to contextualize these personal stories within the current policy of German immigration.

 

Sources Seeking to Contact

 

News Sources

  • Halasz, Gabor. “Antrittsbesuch von al-Scharaa: Umstrittenes Treffen und eine Zahl, die Schlagzeilen macht.” Tagesschau, 30 Mar. 2026.
    Article
  • Intemann, Gabriele. “Regierung will sparen: Freiwillige Integrationskurse eingestellt.” Tagesschau, 12 Feb. 2026.
    Article
  • Mackenzie, James. “Germany’s Merz Says Berlin Will Work with Syria to Return Refugees.” Reuters, 30 Mar. 2026.
    Article
  • Matschurek, Sönke. “‘Ich fühlte mich sicherer’: Was die Kürzung bei Integrationskursen für Berlin bedeutet.” Der Tagesspiegel Checkpoint, 16 Feb. 2026.
    Article
  • Moulson, Geir. “German Lawmakers Vote to Suspend Family Reunions for Many Migrants.” Associated Press, 27 June 2025.
    Article
  • rbb24. “Statistisches Bundesamt: Mehr Einbürgerungen in Berlin und Brandenburg verzeichnet.” rbb24, 3 June 2026.
    Article
  • Vogt, Luisa. “Ein Ort der Trauer, der Heilung und der Stärke.” Good News Magazin, 19 June 2026.
    Article
  • Whittle, Helen. “Germany Suspends Refugees’ Family Reunification.” Deutsche Welle, 27 June 2025.
    Article
  • Zimmermann, Jan. “Neue Lage im Heimatland: Immer mehr Syrer verlieren ihren Schutzstatus.” Tagesschau, 16 Aug. 2026.
    Article
  • “Bundesamt für Migration stoppt seit Dezember 2025 Zulassungen für Integrationskurse.” n-tv, 4 Feb. 2026. AFP/Correctiv reporting.
    Article

 

Primary and Official Sources

  • Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg. “Einbürgerungen auf Rekordhoch.” Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg, 2026.
    Official statistics
  • Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. “Was ist ein Integrationskurs?” BAMF.
    Official explanation
  • Bundesregierung. “Pressekonferenz von Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz und dem Präsidenten der Arabischen Republik Syrien, Ahmed al-Scharaa.” 30 Mar. 2026.
    Official transcript
  • Bundesregierung. “Regierungspressekonferenz vom 21. September 2026.” 21 Sept. 2026.
    Official transcript
  • Federal Foreign Office. “Important Information: Suspension of Family Reunification with Beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection.” 2025.
    Official notice
  • Flamingo e.V. “Heilkräutergarten Hevrîn Xelef.” Flamingo e.V.
    Project page
  • Flamingo e.V. “Über Flamingo e.V.” Flamingo e.V.
    Official homepage
  • Humboldt Forum. “Dara Tûyê – درخت توت – The Mulberry Tree: Feminist Voices on War and Gardens.” Humboldt Forum, 29 Nov. 2025–30 Aug. 2027.
    Official exhibition page
  • Land Berlin, Commissioner for Participation, Integration and Migration. “Bund stoppt Zugang zu Integrationskursen: 8.000 Kursplätze weniger in Berlin.” 13 Feb. 2026.
    Official statement
  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Information on Syria.” UNHCR Germany, 10 Aug. 2026.
    UNHCR guidance
  • Germany. Aufenthaltsgesetz [Residence Act], §104(14). Federal Ministry of Justice.
    Official statutory text

Reading Response 10/6

by Devon Williams

These readings were a fascinating look not only into the political landscape and growing polarization within Germany and the AfD, but also into the nature of journalism exposing such politics. When a paper like Correctiv is able to show the reality of partisan extremism to the public, the response is swift and radical in the populous with protests, millions of clicks and shares, and commentary from other parties. Yet later, calls of false news or dramatization of the story also surface, and the story that shook the country is apparently now “pulled out of thin air.” I was left confused, unsure what to believe of this story after its criticisms– but also the strength of this counterargument makes me feel as though they are afraid of what they know to be the truth, even if they won’t reveal this to the public.

The “Secret Plan Against Germany” felt at first like the kind of investigation that should fundamentally change this party’s standing in the public eye, as the discussion of “remigration” for citizens and non-citizens alike and cancelling of passports for dual citizens should be eye-opening for anyone. Their methods as well, completely covert and spurred on by leaked invitations and supported by hidden cameras and planted photographers, both corroborated the honesty of this meeting the politicians believed they were having in secret, but also called into question the journalistic ethics of concealed truth and identity within reporting. Is it worth it to cross this boundary in order to achieve such a landmark story? When is it okay to break that rule of integrity? Still, this story would not have been made possible without it, and news of journalistic curiosity could have stopped the meeting from occurring altogether.

The reading about the AfD’s electoral growth also called into question the role of polarization in the country’s political landscape. The Economist made clear that struggling parts of the Ruhr are increasing support of the AfD substantially while wealthy and educated areas saw more minimal change in performance. Like the US with MAGA, Germany is “growing apart” through economic decline, fear of immigration, and distrust of established parties creating a pessimistic view of the future allowed polarization to grow to such an extent that the AfD’s message no longer sounds like the dogwhistle that it is.

It seems that the AfD does not have to govern to change German politics (already made impossible by their institutionalized “firewall” against far-right extremists), rather it can put pressure on mainstream politicians to adopt stricter immigration policy and other issues to compete for these same voters. The Economist described this as a recurring event with both the SPD in the Ruhr and CDU politicians generally, showing the weakening of this “firewall” even if it can never fully fall.

In this way, these readings called into question for me the power and role of journalism in divided countries. Correctiv revealed powerful information about an extremist party gaining support, yet it cannot stop this support or the allegations that this truth is a falsehood just because it is contrary to a polarizing party. It can, however, expose the reality of these entities to the public and hope they can mobilize themselves through voting, protests, social media, and at minimum ensure voters have all the information possible when deciding the fate of their country.

Reading Blog 9/29

by Devon Williams

 

Azmat Khan’s New York Times series shocked me with how flippantly America seemed to measure foreign lives. The number of civilians killed by avoidable airstrikes, the way the ‘best’ technology could be so extremely wrong, and how little officials seemed to care about the cost of their mistakes showed another side of American militarism than what is broadcast to the general population. After reviewing thousands of casualty assessments and seeing a “pattern of impunity” rather than isolated mistakes, Khan emphasized that these losses are more than a simple discrepancy or even negligence. This military is capable of taking responsibility for this harm yet intentionally avoids it, instead using the excuse of video limits or technological errors that cannot be disputed yet are still indirectly the fault of operatives. The same branches that committed these grave mistakes are the same ones who investigate it, and it is no surprise that they don’t want to be the ones held accountable.

The ideas of “transient” civilians and heat maps of the traffic of public areas struck me because surveillance itself usually still identifies innocents like women and children, yet the people operating the machines still accept the strikes. The fact that people are moving and ‘could’ get out of the way or there ‘may not’ be as many people as their could be within a space is enough plausible deniability for the US to dismiss the lives likely to be extinguished, and even when these decisions are challenged, the military stands by their flawed techniques.

Technological obscurity is continuously employed as a scapegoat, as children are called “unknown heavy objects” within rubble or in buildings, cars entire colors are mismatched, or men on motorcycles are seen as possible attach formations all because of an easy moral escape and intentional confirmation bias. Even when external analyses reveal extremely high death toles like the 120 civilians following the Tokhar strike, the existing policies and practices are seen as acceptable for continued operations. Where is the line where countless innocent deaths are acceptable for the possibility of striking one or two select targets? The obscurity and instability of technology and decision-making before a strike  can justify action due to the possibility of harm while also acting as a system to take the fall when that inference is wrong or miscalculated. It seems like there is no way that the operatives themselves are ever held accountable for their actions or actually accept that they are the ones to take the blame.

This led me to consider how institutional responsibility continues after conflict is over or when mistakes are retroactively recognized by internal or external bodies; even the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a ‘mistake’ to some, with Abdul Wahid Wafa calling it “hasty” and “irresponsible” when it jeopardized careers and institutions built alongside American presence and protection. Despite America being the institution to cause much of the unnecessary harm aforementioned, the shadow of retaliation and strength still deterred harm for many within the country. Germany’s suspension of the programs accepting Afghans into the country was parallel in its haste and self-interest, leaving people stranded in Pakistan seeking their deportation (Reuters) or at risk of being sent back to the country that was already violent enough to force them to escape, with EuroNews reporting that “Afghanistan is not safe” even when Europeans want it to be for deportation. The countries and institutions that cause this harm both directly and indirectly still never seem to feel like they have blood on their hands, and through technological errors, miscalculations, or straight-up refusal of wrongdoing it doesn’t seem like anything can force them to recognize their role as the aggressor in addition to the self-proclaimed ‘protector.’

The Crisis of Going on Record at College Newspapers (Devon Williams News Article)

The Crisis of Going on Record at the Prince

by Devon Williams

 

President Donald Trump announced on September 18 that he would bar CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from reporting within the White House, accusing them of reporting “fiction and lies,” according to Reuters. The outlets sued three days later, and their credentials were temporarily restored by court order on September 24 while the case continues.

The White House is not the only American entity rejecting the media as biased and villainous coverage. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 28% of Americans had a great deal or fair amount of trust in mass media. At Princeton, the Daily Princetonian says this hesitation forms less along partisan lines and more around fear of national visibility, accuracy, and source treatment. 

“A lot of people were trepidatious about talking to the Prince because historically, The Daily Princetonian has had issues with naming sources and … not properly attributing quotes,” said Luke Grippo, head News editor of the Daily Princetonian. 

In the past two years, Grippo remembers sources requesting anonymity or refusing interviews because of previous negative experiences with the quality of the Prince reporting under different leadership.

The Municipality of Princeton’s government shared these same concerns two years ago with misattributions, and the Princeton University Administration was similarly tentative with communication on hot-button issues.

“One of [former editor-in-chief Miriam Waldvogel]’s priorities was working to change that stigma around The Daily Princetonian … bringing a more rigorous editing process, making sure that we were accurate and checking everything,” he continued. He states that this helped increase trust in the paper for all members of the Princeton community.

International students are uniquely tentative to have contact with the Prince. The sense of national visibility and public identification could put their safety and stability at risk.

“International students were worried about visa concerns if they were named in an article,” said Grippo.

Grippo says the current board has become more willing to grant anonymity as identification increasingly puts students at risk.

Yet Oliver Wu, assistant News editor, doesn’t “believe that it’s actually created a substantive change, at least from what I can tell.” 

Wu has struggled to find students willing to comment on the country’s new restrictions on student and work visas, shortening the time students have to find a job post-grad to stay in the country or even complete degrees longer than four years.

Nationally, this distrust in media is divided by partisan bias. At Princeton, this is not as simply the case. 

Opposing voices, specifically those that are right-wing, may not be in conflict with the paper because they are not speaking at all.

Wu explained that while polling and getting comments from students on the University’s DEI policies last year, multiple conservative students “just declined to comment” because they believed their views would not be “welcome,” while all interviews he successfully conducted were from students in support of DEI policies.

“It may just be the case that … they feel their opinion is not socially accepted overall on campus,” Wu said.

Grippo noted that the Opinion section has received repeated critiques of perceived liberal bias rather than the news section itself. He says they are actively working to combat this bias.

Social media has also been a spark of partisan polarization in the media. Headlines spin truth to attract the attention of one political party or another, framing everything through the lens of key partisan issues to intentionally gain clicks from an audience they know will respond to such keywords.

“That headline might be pasted onto an Instagram post, and … maybe that’s all people will see,” said Wu. 

Wu says this atmosphere has made him more “cautious” about headlines that fairly represent all viewpoints, and Grippo says the paper now has to scrutinize if a headline is “clickbaity.” 

In a modern world primed for polarization and distrust, the Prince is working to edit more strictly, protect anonymity, and remain objective to ensure the paper is reliable for all students on campus.

For Wu, these changes will take time to solidify the community’s trust. 

“That must be done over multiple years of consistent quality coverage or fair coverage.”

Reading Reflection 9/21

by Devon Williams

Social media has been a key player in the war in Ukraine since the very beginning of the conflict. I remember seeing posts upon posts on Instagram from friends attempting to bring awareness to the cause, to encourage the people of the US to rise in solidarity with democracy and the protection of those whose rights were being attacked. It gave us a new ‘front row’ to a conflict thousands of miles away– both making us feel more involved in the outcome and somehow more personally responsible for our role or possible role within it. Journalism used to be the sole arbiter of this exchange of experience, responsibility, and involvement, while social media collapses this chain into a single role. Panievsky’s “The Populist War on Our Right to Know” in The New Censorship explains how journalists held the responsibility for “gate-keeping, investigating, and scrutinizing” and are increasingly vilified as corrupt meddlers so much so that the “very act of mediation is disputed” within society (Panievsky, 41). Social media embodies this dispute of mediation, making journalists’ official work mute when one can post or view warfare directly on one’s phone devoid of context or verification.

Within “The Playbook: Choose Your Weapon,” she develops this idea further in describing social media as “liberating technology” for the populous that renders official media “futile and unnecessary” (43). As Ukraine’s war is one of the most visible in history with social media littered with video of drone attacks, front lines, destroyed buildings, and civilian suffering and protest circulating instantaneously, it makes the audience feel as though they know everything about the war or at least are witnessing a true, large part of it. Seeming ‘firsthand’ accounts from battlefields or civilians can appear to be almost more trustworthy than a person on TV or authoring an article published hours later, but the key piece of context, verification, and representing balanced and diverse perspectives is missing from such content. This mediation can appear unnecessary through social media, but until polarization and misinformation reach a breaking point destructive enough to be noticed, it is hard to tell for the common viewer what is missing from their sources.

Technology is consistently collapsing the role of the watcher and soldier within global warfare–  it expands who has access to information, but it also allows for continuously advancing forms of weaponry such as AI powered drones and systems (Reuters). These drones put civilians and small teams once reserved for militaries, expanding the sphere of active participants in warfare in a new way that could expand into future warfare standards. Tech not only collapses the time it takes for a viewer to experience a war but also the time and involvement with which war is enacted. Without the human mediator of a drone pilot or soldier, is personal responsibility lost? Is context and the true cost of these actions obscured for those involved?

Verification, context, human judgement, and responsibility are removed from the equation of war without the mediators of journalism or human participant in warfare. Flaws in social media information could misdirect aid efforts or place the blame of the public on the wrong person, further polarize global views of conflict, or even numb the public due to the constant and massive influx of the experience of human suffering. Flaws in weaponry technology could result in unnecessary loss of life and loss of responsibility for that suffering if the one that technically ‘pulls the trigger’ isn’t human. Currently in Ukraine drones and AI assisted targeting are only increasing even as levels of actual autonomy are varied (Reuters). This push for mechanization of both information and mechanics is driven by the desire to ‘know’ everything fully without delay and from the front lines. But as Panievsky highlights, the removing of these intermediaries does not immediately guarantee greater freedom, truth, or responsibility. Social media makes war more visible to the world, but this also makes every video impossible to verify. Without mediators it is impossible to promise truth, even if information feels more immediate to those receiving it.

An Obituary Worth the New York Times: A Profile of Chris Bao

By Devon Williams

Chris Bao is a man full of contradictions.

He knows that “only some people get obituaries in the New York Times,” yet insists every personal story has value.

As former head news editor of The Daily Princetonian, he has written more than 80 stories but can’t find a word to say about himself.

Even when he states he doesn’t think he is “that interesting,” it’s clear there is more to Bao than meets the eye.

Born in Hoboken, New Jersey, Bao grew up primarily in Plainsboro just 15 miles from Princeton. His parents, both immigrants from China, work in software engineering and financial consulting. Bao calls his younger sister “one of my best friends.”

Despite this closeness, that trust has not been as easy with his parents. Differences in values have shaped Bao’ relationship with them in adulthood, and he is of the mind “found family” with those “who consistently prove that they’re there for you, and you’re there for them as well” is the critical form of community.

“I’m grateful for a lot of my upbringing,” he said, but he also appreciates that “not every family looks alike, and not every relationship with your family is going to look the same.”

Bao spent two years of his youth in China, particularly remembering an educational emphasis on endurance, conformity, and self-sacrifice, through intense mathematical study and stories prioritizing the nation over the individual.

“Back then it seemed pretty normal,” he said.

Since returning in sixth grade, he has come to prefer American individualism. Yet time in both cultures shaped a worldview skeptical of how much “free will” people truly have over who they are.

He believes that behavior is “very heavily influenced by our environment,” rather than chosen character.

This does not allow him to tolerate cruelty or selfishness, however.

“A little bit of kindness and thoughtfulness in your interactions with other people is, I think, something that’s ultimately important,” he said.

Siyeon Lee, a close friend and fellow Daily Princetonian writer, sees those values in the way he approaches the world.

“He’s a deeply analytical person,” She said. “I think he views the world as something that he can sort of dissect and analyze and understand.”

That drive has called him to become one of the most dedicated head news editors and prolific writers the ‘Prince’ has seen.

“I don’t really think about myself, and that’s why I like journalism, because you can think about other people,” he said. “The best interviews come when I try to sort of forget all of my preconceptions and everything I know, and just try and purely hear them out.”

Lee thinks this habit explains why Bao underestimates himself. His journalism “largely stems from… listening to other people and crafting narratives about them” to the extent that “he doesn’t think about himself as much as the average person does.”

Charlie Yale, another close friend from the paper, is more blunt.

“I take issue with that.” Yale said of Bao’ claim that he is uninteresting. “I think he’s extremely interesting.”

Yale sees this humility as a reflection of the intense dedication Bao exemplifies. “If he is going to do something, it’s gonna be done well.”

Bao admits this non-stop work ethic can sometimes verge on neuroticism.

“I’m the kind of person who will ask like five people to read an email before I send it off…or if I misspelled their name even though I checked it like 17 times.”

While deep in the swing of the paper and his studies at Princeton, Bao suffered health problems relating to stress-based carpal tunnel that led him to take a gap year.

Such a setback may slow down the average person, but Bao faced it with acceptance and an unstoppable work ethic. He continued to do independent work while at home, and was still ever-present on campus and at coffee dates with his friends.

“It is entirely possible that I might not be able to do X, Y, Z in my life. But I just have to somehow come to terms with that and…focus on what I can do,” he said.

Now back at Princeton, Bao is considering law school despite his love of journalism. “There are no jobs, there is no pay. You might get assassinated!” he said, but he still loves the field even if not for the long-term.

Whatever he chooses, Lee says Bao “undersells himself.” In her mind, he would be exactly the kind of person to get the New York Times obituary he joked about.

“He would probably work for The New York Times, and then he would die in The New York Times,” she said.

At the very least, he would be well remembered by those who admire his incredible drive and dedication as a journalist but also, as a friend.

Devon Williams Reflection Blog Post 9/14

I have never yet thought about how much of a luxury it is to have the privilege to grieve; yet after reading Loubna Mrie’s Defiance chapters, I have never felt so lucky.

I see a lot of myself in her. Her drive to report on what she sees as necessary, her passion for her country by way of seeking its change and revolution, her love for her family that leads her to regret not giving her mother that hug before she left for the last time. She too finds the value in the grief she can’t afford: “The sadness of realizing that I never imagined experiencing a war where I would be overwhelmed with uncontrollable jealousy toward someone because he was able to bury the upper half of his mother’s dead body” (Mrie, 257).

The almost inconceivable level of brutality she lives through over and over, both through the viewing of online documentation of torture and governmental corruption and through her own lived experience informs a reality I will never be able to relate to, and one that many others will not be able to either. Even the well-meaning Egyptian activist workshop leader, seeking to have Mrie prove that “as an Alawite and a Kurd, we can engage in conversation and share the fruit equally between us” (240) is so far removed from the breed of viscerality Loubna has experienced that she may as well be trying to teach activism to a person from another planet. The aid that so many Western countries believe they are giving to these activists can be so much less than is needed that it becomes a condescension, a mockery of what these people have already suffered.

I cannot say I can see myself in this part of Mrie’s experience, but I can see it in the way she tries to move on from it. Disconnect from her sister and a sense of insult at the prospect of needing help through therapy are familiar feelings for anyone who has suffered from mental health crises or from the loss of a loved one. It is this humanity that ties not only me to the narrative of her life, but also the numerous Western media outlets interested in her story following her post of her mother’s murder leading her to further online abuse. This media affiliation leads Mrie to later reflect that it  lifted her “family out of extreme poverty, making them one of the wealthiest Alawite families in Syria” (254) while also being the presumed cause of her mother’s death.

Media, defined only as the flow of potentially information, is both a lifeline and a death sentence for her, and its reliability even on the basis of truth is contentious; the call of mother’s death and the complete lack of clarity or closure, the documents signed by families sacrificing truth to the government to recover their childrens’ bodies, and the communication that led that woman back to her town to be stoned to death all functioned as media that was meant to seem truthful. The same vehicle that can and will bring about revolution brings about the same death it seeks to prevent.

The strikingly relatable, human personal narrative of these refugee stories connect audiences just enough to have a taste for the pain suffered, but not enough to ever understand the scope of the cost of the migration they undergo.

The same may be said of Abdul Hadi in Anand Gopal’s Days of Love and Rage; ever the young impassioned child, Abdul’s first spark was seeing the sacrifice made by women protesting. All they had to lose outweighed what they had to gain, and Hadi’s call of “What’s our excuse?” echoed the call of so many mobilized by media of protest. But that truth that mobilized him similarly steered others away; “Once word spread of a disturbance downtown, people avoided the area entirely. Fear was still their master” (Gopal, 137). Even here in the United States, the constant inundation of suffering in the media both at home, particularly through ICE raids and continued police brutality, and abroad, through the genocide in Gaza and the war in Ukraine, exposure to information does not equate to activism. For all those it radicalizes, it similarly numbs; in seeing so much pain we lose the impact and motivating value of it.

As Patrick Kingsley’s The New Odyssey, all the  disgust of the pain and brutality of migration and what it entails becomes something normalized and accepted; “Perhaps the most extraordinary part of this scene is just how ordinary it has become” (Kingsley, 4). It is no wonder that after so many years of main, migration, loss of identity, and regaining it, those who have finally taken root and whose families have grown up on shores not familiar to the parents’ don’t feel like they can lose their new stability (Washington Post, The New Arab). They have spent more of themselves trying to achieve this dream than many can understand, even when looking directly through the eyes of Mrie, Hadi, or Hashem. The media that can communicate this information has become distrusted, unreliable, and numbing– only through an intentional empathy and critical understanding will necessary change be made in the way we tell stories, how we understand them, and how we employ them to make those tales of suffering no longer ‘ordinary.’

Devon Williams Lede

Chris Bao is a man full of contradictions. 

He believes that “there’s a reason why only some people get obituaries in the New York Times,” yet he believes every story has intrinsic value.

As past head news editor of The Daily Princetonian, he has written more than 80 stories, but can’t find a word to say about himself.

He states he is ‘calm’ and ‘mature,’ and being “neurotic” is something many would not know about him, yet he rotated through brushing dirt off his pants, changing sitting positions, and drawing with a twig in the mud constantly throughout the interview.

Even when though he says doesn’t think he is “that interesting,” it’s clear there is more to Chris than meets the eye.

 

The McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning
328 Frist Campus Center, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
PH: 609-258-2575 | FX: 609-258-1433
mcgrawdll@princeton.edu

A unit of the Office of the Dean of the College

© Copyright 2026 The Trustees of Princeton University

Accessiblity | Privacy notice