Monthly Archives: September 2018

Dramatics dominate Florence news

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

At the height of hurricane season, it’s no surprise that a large storm has formed and will hit the East Coast. That being said, news coverage of the storm is verging on theatrics.

It seems that each year the news media’s coverage of natural disasters increases in sheer time allocated towards the events and in the dramatics with which the news is delivered.

While this may very well be due to an increase in the intensity of storms, the news media are not attempting to quell the general population’s discomfort regarding impending natural threats. This leaves the outlet’s intent when covering storms to question: are they just doing their best to spread breaking information for public safety or are they intentionally using fear-inducing tactics to keep a captive and large audience?

This questionable phenomenon is no different with approaching hurricane Florence.

Opening with dubbing the hurricane as “violent,” Washington Post article “Category 4 Hurricane Florence drawing closer to Carolinas and threatens ‘catastrophic’ flooding” by James Samenow, is one of many fear-inducing pieces circling the web.

Throughout the piece Samenow uses various, arguably unnecessary, phrases to describe the approaching hurricane.

Samenow describes the storm as, “monstrous” and “like a bulldozer,” and emphasizes his intentions with verbs like “unleash.”

Even the direct quotations chosen for the piece are ominous. Including one from North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper saying, “Even if you’ve ridden out storms before, this one is different.”

Granted, Samenow does prove to have some educational intentions with this article through the inclusion of scientific information, quotations, and graphs via sources like The National Hurricane Center, High Plains Regional Climate Center, and The National Weather Service.

Furthermore, Samenow elaborates on various path projections and the fact that storms are very unpredictable.

The article is extremely informative, but the threatening vocabulary scattered throughout the piece points towards underlying intentions beyond informing the masses.

Shalala wins Democratic nomination

Posted on by

By JENNIFER HUDAK

After a tough battle, Donna Shalala, former University of Miami President and Secretary of Health and Human Services, has won the nomination for the South Florida District 27 Congressional seat. Among her opponents were former Knight Foundation director Matt Haggman, former University of Miami academic adviser Michael Hepburn and Miami Beach Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez.

The showdown in November will come between Shalala and GOP nominee Maria Elvira Salazar, a former Univision reporter and anchor, is expected to be a close race.

Throughout her campaign, Shalala was adamant on several policy stances. Among the most controversial, Shalala campaigned for government-provided health care, removing the nation’s immigration enforcement force (ICE) and starting impeachment proceedings on Trump on day one if she is elected.

While her views may deter from the Democratic agenda, Shalala’s resume bodes an impressive history in Washington. Serving as chair of the Children’s Defense Fund from 1992 to 1993, President Bill Clinton nominated her as Secretary of Health and Human Services in 1992.

Many constituents cited this experience as making Shalala the most qualified among the Democrats for the nomination.

The final election will take place on Nov. 6.

Homeless hero gets his funds

Posted on by

By NOA ISRAEL

Many have been following the story of Johnny Bobbit Jr., a homeless ex-Marine that saved a stranded girl by giving her his last $20 for gas last October. Soon after the encounter, the girl, Kate McClure, started a GoFundMe Campaign— “Paying it Forward”— in order to raise money for Bobbit as a thank you gesture. The campaign went viral.

Within a few months, more than 10,000 people had donated to the campaign and raised more than $400,000 for Bobbit. It seemed as though the story had come to a happy end. However, as the money came funneling in, problems began to arise between McClure, her boyfriend, Mark D’Amico, and Bobbit.

“The money has been in dispute, and Bobbitt is suing the couple, accusing them of fraud. Bobbitt’s attorney says his client has only seen about $75,000 of that money and should have gotten about $300,000 more after GoFundMe’s fees,” CNN reported.

The couple refused to give Bobbit his campaign donations, claiming it was because of his drug addiction— feeling he would spend it all recklessly. Bobbitt and his lawyer disputed this and claimed the couple was using the money for their own necessities.

After a legal battle, the couple is now being ordered to hand over the money to Bobbit and a search warrant has been issued for their home to see what and how the money they received was handled. The mass amounts of news media attention on social media and the news surrounding Bobbit’s story contributed to his recovery of his deserved money quickly and smoothly.

Bobbit plans to use his new found fortune to find a place to live, pay rent and other necessities. He also plans to participate in a rehabilitation program in order to target his drug addiction problem.

Florence news sends mixed messages

Posted on by

By DAVE DOWNEY

The middle of September is typically the time of the year when the Atlantic Basin is most active for producing tropical cyclones. This year looks to be living up to the norm.

Tropical Storm Florence is flourishing out in the Western Atlantic, several hundred miles southeast of Bermuda. Two other areas of disturbance are located several hundred miles off the coast of Africa. The National Hurricane Center expects both of these areas to be named storms, Helen and Issac, by the end of the weekend.

Florence is quietly sneaking up on the eastern seaboard, which is something many news outlets are simply not picking up on. USA Today wrote an excellent article Thursday outlining the high activity level of the tropics, along with an enticing headline (Florence expected to re-strengthen as it nears the East Coast) giving readers a heads-up.

NJ.com‘s headline is significantly different (Hurricane Florence weakens to tropical storm as New Jersey weekend weather cools considerably). They fail to recognize the point that their area could very well be in the path of this storm at this time next week but instead focus on the fact that Florence has briefly weakened to a tropical storm, which will certainly not last long.

Although it is understandable that news outlets do not want to scare their readers and induce panic and preparation at too early of a stage, it should still be imperative that the word is out there that they could be in the path of a major hurricane in a short amount of time.

California bans animal testing

Posted on by

By ANABELLA ZAMBRANO

California is now first in line to pass the “Cruelty Free Cosmetics Act” which will make it illegal for any products tested on animals to be sold in the state. These products include make up brands, house cleaning detergents, medicine, air refreshers and even food.

Companies like Maybelline, NARS, Benefit Cosmetics and cleaning detergent TIDE are among the hundreds of companies who test on animals but will not make a direct statement admitting it. Even though they don’t test on animals within the U.S., they still are guilty of these practices because they still sell in mainland China.

By law, China requires animal testing for foreign cosmetics companies. Make up brand NARS was cruelty-free until last year, in 2017, when it decided to sell in China to expand its brand and raise sales.

These testing procedures range from injecting the product in a rabbit’s eye with no pain killers, beagle puppies forced to inhale toxic chemicals or rats eating certain products and study how they react. It is illegal for people to take pictures of these procedures or even document them. Lack of coverage or news reports have prevented this bill to be passed.

According to VegNews.com, The California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act (SB 1249) was unanimously passed with a vote of 80-0 in the state assembly. Sen. Cathleen Galliani sponsored the bill and it will officially become law on Jan. 1, 2020.

“I’m proud of California lawmakers for moving science, industry, and ethics forward today,” Galliani said.

The cruelty-free controversy would not even be happening if it wasn’t for social media. Through Instagram, Twitter and Facebook groups numerous animal activists and animal lovers are the one’s who brought this problem to the public eye.

Animal testing is something that is highly protected by powerful make up brands and they have tried to hide their animal practices to the consumer.

Scott uses runway for political stand

Posted on by

By NOELLE BARREDA

Jeremy Scott used his runway to take a political stand.

Scott is known for his unapologetic style in fashion. He is very creative and is all about having fun while creating fashion.

Scott closed his show with a debut of his white t-shirt with black letters saying, “Tell your senators no on Kavanaugh.” The t-shirt statement was followed by the phone number to Washington, D.C., where you are able to call an express how you feel.

The Vogue.com article on Jeremy Scott covered who Kavanaugh is to the general public and why he is important while keeping it simple for an audience who probably isn’t politically inclined to understand.

According to Vogue.com, Scott has been very open lately on his political views with gay rights and is not holding back any time soon. Continuing showing his stance by showcasing this t-shirt during New York Fashion Week in protest to change the election of Kavanaugh.

He hopes that other designers follow his lead and speak up on what is right during NYFW where it can make a great impact.

Saban comments draw criticism

Posted on by

By NICOLAS IPARRAGUIRRE

As the college football season kicked off this past weekend, the major off-season story surrounding the defending champion Alabama Crimson Tide has been the quarterback battle between junior Jalen Hurts and sophomore Tua Tagovailia. After a dominant 51-14 win over Louisville in the opening game, the prevailing story surrounding Alabama has been the behavior of Coach Nick Saban in his post-game interview.

In an interview with ESPN sideline reporter Maria Taylor, in which she asked about whether the game provided any answers to the ongoing quarterback battle, Saban gave an answer that drew the ire of most members of the sports media.

“I think both guys are good players. I think both guys can help our team, all right? So why do you continually try to get me to say something that doesn’t respect one of them? I’m not going to. So quit asking,” said an irate Saban to the reporter.

Following the interview, many in the sports news media expressed their disgust with Saban’s answer to a question he should have seen coming. “He may be the best coach of all time, but when he continues to treat people like that … it’s classless,” said veteran college football analyst Paul Finebaum.

Along with the news media, some experts in sports journalism also weighed in on the controversy. Following the interview, director of sports journalism at Northwestern University J.A. Adande tweeted, “It’s hard to respect Nick Saban when he won’t respect other professionals who are doing their jobs and doing their jobs well.”

Although Saban has since issued an apology, none of the coverage surrounding the incident has focused on the source of Saban’s anger. In providing a defense for the outburst, former Alabama safety Vinnie Sunseri tweeted, “Love seeing Coach get animated when asked about QB’s after the game! Why he’s so great, cares for them on a personal level and respects both Jalen and Tua too much to say anything negative about either one ever!! #kingsaban.”

While Saban’s behavior was unprofessional and disrespectful towards Taylor, who asked a question that should have been expected, the root of Saban’s anger should have also been a part of the story.

Kaepernick news causes more tension

Posted on by

By ANDREW FRATTAROLI

Nike recently announced that Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers’ quarterback, would be the face of its new advertising campaign. This has blown up on social media and caused withdrawn support for the company due to his decision to kneel during the national anthem at NFL games.

Out of all the national news media coverage it has received, I chose to look at the article that CNN published, titled, “Nike’s support for Colin Kaepernick protest has some destroying their shoes” written by James Masters and Gianluca Mezzofiore. As CNN is a liberal news media outlet, I wanted to see if they could look at this issue objectively, as this has become a liberal vs conservative debate. They tried (sort of), but ultimately failed.

CNN decided to choose three clips of men from Twitter who did not give their opinion on the matter, but rather just showed video clips of them burning their gear. One of the videos was a high school student who was laughing and playing the national anthem in the background. At no point in this story, did the reporters get someone who fully describes their point of view towards the company, and on the matter as a whole.

If they had done further research, they would have found that people are not solely upset that Nike is affiliating themselves with a former athlete, who many believe disrespected the flag and the military by kneeling. What a lot of people are upset about, is the slogan. The slogan says, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”

It is referring to the fact that Kaepernick is no longer an NFL quarterback due to his decision to kneel during the anthem. However, Kaepernick has had multiple job offers in other professional areas since 2016, and many believe that he has not been signed to a team because of his poor quarterback performance. He is currently suing many NFL owners, accusing them of conspiring to keep him off a professional roster.

Additionally, Kaepernick is set to make millions with his Nike deal, possibly more than he would have made in the NFL, which causes people to question the legitimacy of the ad campaign and his willingness to “sacrifice everything.”

CNN could have made its point more efficiently if it chose its content to show the ideas on the other side of the debate, rather than three videos of people who are a terrible generalization of the people who are offended by this move by Nike. CNN kept the information at the surface level and added additional tensions between the general public by not trying to understand and present both sides of the argument.

The liberal side has a very good reason for supporting Kaepernick as he highlights racial injustice in America; an issue that there is no hiding from and needs to be worked on by all Americans. However, by pointing fingers, and showing a poor depiction of the opposing argument, they throw away any possibility of a meaningful conversation between both the left and the right.

Twitter bans Alex Jones, InfoWars

Posted on by

By ADAM SPECTOR

Twitter banned Alex Jones and other accounts pertaining to InfoWars, his fake news website on Thursday afternoon. This was covered by countless local and national news sources including ABC, CBS, NBC, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post to name a few. This story has also been covered by a number of tech websites such as CNET and Engadget.

InfoWars is known for promoting fake news stories and conspiracy theories such as 9-11 being an inside job, the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, and countless untrue stories about various public figures.

“Today, we permanently suspended @realalexjones and @infowars from Twitter and Periscope. We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accounts’ past violations,” the company wrote on its account.

Twitter is not the first high-profile company to drop Infowars. Apple, YouTube, Facebook and Spotify removed InfoWars from their platforms earlier this August. These companies mostly cited “hate speech” as their reason for removing Jones and InfoWars from their platforms and not for deliberately spreading false information.

Back in August, Twitter publicly stated that they would not remove Jones or InfoWars because they did not violate their policies. Twitter had previously suspended Jones for one week for promoting violence against news reporters, saying to get their “battle rifles” ready.

Twitter decided to ban Jones and InfoWars after Jones publicly harassed Oliver Darcy, a reporter at CNN. On this same day, Jones also harassed Senator Marco Rubio.

News sources such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times have done a better job of covering this story than most other news sources because they also mentioned that these tech companies have been criticized for waiting too long to remove InfoWars and other fake news sources from their platforms.

Many believe that some of these companies only removed Jones and Infowars because other companies did so and not for the reasons that they provided. This is a fair and valid point, as sources like InfoWars have already made a major impact on the public. In addition to this, InfoWars has been around for years and has had few problems releasing false information, hateful content, and promoting violence. Many news sources have made the mistake of labeling InfoWars as a far-right website and not a fake news website.

McMurphy’s reporting raises concern

Posted on by

By MATTHEW POWELL

Over the summer, Urban Meyer and the Ohio State football program found themselves under immense scrutiny for their handling of former coach Zach Smiths domestic violence accusations that led to his delayed departure. Although the scrutiny was well warranted and fair, the reporting done that broke this story leaves a lot to be desired from a journalistic perspective.

Former ESPN reporter, Brett McMurphy, was the first person to break the story surrounding Zach Smith that sparked both Meyer’s suspension and the suspension of Ohio State’s athletic director, Gene Smith. Although this was certainly the most important story of his career, the reporting that went into breaking this story was questionable.

When Brett McMurphy was laid off from ESPN, he lost his platform to report stories. Like many other reporters who have been let go from their publications, Brett McMurphy took to posting his stories on Facebook to inform his followers about what was going on in the college football world. Evidently, this is where Brett McMurphy posted this bombshell story that quickly attracted attention.

In order to understand the reason as to why the reporting was suspect, one must understand what was initially reported and why the story was such a big deal. Brett McMurphy reported that Zach Smith was arrested in 2015 with a charge of domestic violence toward his former wife. This led people to believe that Urban Meyer was aware of that arrest and did nothing about it. The problem with reporting that Zach Smith was arrested is a pretty big one: Zach Smith was never arrested.

Reporters make mistakes all the time, it’s just something that happens in the industry. The problem with this mistake is that it was the basis of the entire story. If Zach Smith was never arrested, Urban Meyer would have never heard about the allegation and thus would have no reason to enforce any sort of action. If he was arrested, Urban Meyer would have probably been fired earlier this month, instead of getting suspended, because employing someone who has been arrested for domestic violence is grossly irresponsible is wrong.

The biggest problem with the reporting was how Brett McMurphy “fixed” his mistake. Brett McMurphy didn’t post anywhere that he made a mistake that changed his initial bombshell story. Of course he didn’t, because if he admitted this mistake then his story would significantly diminish in importance. Brett McMurphy simply went onto his Facebook post, edited the story to reflect that Zach Smith was never arrested, and went on with his day. Thankfully, people picked up on the fact that McMurphy edited his post without saying anything.

Instead of following journalistic procedures and properly updating his story, Brett McMurphy took a side and wanted to stay as relevant as possible in his moment of fame. In doing so, McMurphy changed the entire narrative surrounding the Ohio State football program based off a report that was simply untrue.

Burberry fashion house ends use of fur

Posted on by

By MIRIAM RUIZ

Designer brand Burberry is turning away from using fur as a fashion statement and going green.

There is a constant discussion between the morality and ethics of using animal fur on clothing as a fashion statement. While it is a common practice to use fur for the sake of fashion, designer Riccardo Tisci’s newest collection will emphasize the responsibility that such luxurious brands have to help the environment. 

Burberry’s latest designs have been said to be made with originality and creativity while at the same time allowing the company to go green. All current items in stock that appear with fur will be eventually removed from stores.

An article on Vogue.com mentions how Burberry has been doing a good job on recycling, donations, and reusing their products. It shows that as a brand they have made a big effort in developing an alternative way to design their clothing in a way that helps the planet.

The chief executive officer of the fashion house, Marco Gobbetti, stressed on how important it is for the success of the company to follow these rules and be responsible for the environment.

While news media criticism and complaints from protestors encouraged these actions to be taken, it is an overall good strategy and will help problems with waste and the planet in general.

Burberry has stopped burning unsold goods, has started to recycle products, and now has banned the use of fur in their clothing. Riccardo Tisci is helping the brand change for the better. The company’s new twist on morale and operation to go green will be shown Sept. 17 at London Fashion Week when Riccardo Tisci’s collection will debut.

Steelers prefer Juice or hogs?

Posted on by

By TYRIQ MCCORD

With the NFL season starting Thursday, teams are ready to lace up the cleats and win some games. Well at least majority of them.

Steelers’ running back Le’Veon Bell, the self-proclaimed Juice, has been holding out with the team organization all off season and the pre-season just to renew his contract to get what he believes he deserves. Bell, who ended top three in both rushing yards and rushing touchdowns in 2017, signed a $12.12 million one-year deal in 2017 and expects to be paid more. The Steelers put a $14.54 million franchise tag on Bell but has yet to agree to the deal and some teammates are getting bothered by it.

Offensive linemen Maurkice Pouncey and Ramon Foster were very out spoken about Bell’s situation and they were not happy.

“Honestly it’s a little selfish, I’m kinda pissed right now. It sucks that he’s not here. we’ll move on as a team. It doesn’t look like he’ll be in the game plan at this point,” Pouncey said through Tim Benz of the Tribune-Review.

“Nobody is taking this well at all,” Foster explained per Mark Kaboly of The Athletic. “That guy comes in half the season, and he still will make more than me so f–k it, right?”

Bleacher Report posted quotes from both of Le’Veon’s teammates on their Instagram page and Le’Veon left a simple comment under the picture saying “whoa.” The hogs, offensive linemen, are pretty upset simply because they feel “we’re the guys who do it for him,” Foster would say.

Second year running back, James Conner, played a limited role for the Pittsburgh last year as a back up to Le’Veon. He ended the season with only 144 rushing yards on 32 attempts with no touchdowns.

Conner looks great. We’ll worry about him [Le’Veon] in Week 2,” Pouncey said.

Steelers kickoff against a new and improved Cleveland Browns team at 1 p.m. this Sunday. Though they will be juiceless in their first game, the hogs are looking forward to leading Conner to a great game in his first-ever career start.

Kardashian attracts press for clemency

Posted on by

By ISABELLA VACCARO

After her first visit with President Trump in June to lobby the release of Alice Marie Johnson from her lifetime prison sentence, Kardashian West returned to the White House this Wednesday to attend a listening session on clemency reform.

An article on CNN.com, headlined “Kim Kardashian at White House for clemency review session,” briefly mentioned Kardashian West’s participation at the meeting, but quickly moved on, focusing rather on other reform activists and attendees. 

Authors Jeremy Diamond and Betsy Klein chose to interview human rights attorney Jessica Jackson Sloan, who attended the session to advocate the reduction in inmate populations of federal prisons. Sloan complimented Jared Kushner and other White House staff for their efforts, and even regarded Kushner as “one of the most persistent and passionate advocates for criminal justice reform.”

The article even went on to discuss the progress of the First Step Act — a bill pushing to entice prisoners with early release if they participate in rehabilitation, thus decreasing the number of federal prisoners — which is still in limbo after pausing in Senate this summer. 

The article mentioned that Kardashian West gave “concrete feedback” at the meeting and brought up her involvement with another drug-related imprisonment case, quoting one of her Tweets on the subject. But, that’s it. 

There was not one direct quote from the reality star, and her presence in the article seemed, in my opinion, out of place. The purpose of the article was to report on the progress of various sentencing reforms, as well as explain what was discussed at the clemency review. 

Despite the clear goal of the article, Kardashian West’s name seemed to plague the headline, lede and first three paragraphs of the story — not to mention the video interview with her at the very top of the article. It is obvious that the beauty icon’s insertion into a blatantly political article was a media ploy to appeal to a larger readership. 

The strong emphasis on Kardashian West was unnecessary in achieving the goal of the article and actually proved misleading as to the contents of the rest of the piece, which did not have much to do with her. The authors could have definitely mentioned her attendance at the meeting, but should have probably chosen a different headline, lede and visual medium to accompany the story. 

Nonetheless, what the article does well is detail Trump’s involvement on the issue, as well as the standpoints of various attendees of the meeting, including former federal judge Kevin Sharp and the President’s daughter, Ivanka Trump. It is also well-reported, quoting three attendees of the listening session. 

Kardashian continues justice crusade

Posted on by

By NICOLE LEMBO

Reality television star Kim Kardashian West is known for many things. The model, TV personality and entrepreneur can now add “advocate for criminal justice reform” to her long list of accolades.

In June, Kardashian West paid a visit to the White House, where she spoke with President  Trump on behalf of Alice Marie Johnson, who was serving a life sentence in prison for drug possession. Through her efforts, Kardashian West was able to convince Trump to reduce Johnson’s prison time.

While this was certainly a great accomplishment for Kardashian West, her work was not yet done. According to CNN, Kardashian West arrived at the White House once again on Wednesday morning to attend a session on clemency and prison reform with White House officials, including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

This time, she also advocated for a man named Chris Young. During an appearance on the podcast, “Wrongful Conviction,” Kardashian West revealed that Young was sentenced to life in prison on drug possession charges in 2010. He already had two prior convictions for drug possession, which resulted in a third strike, and ultimately led to a life sentence.

“Yesterday, I had a call with a gentleman that’s in prison for a drug case — got life. It’s so unfair. He’s 30 years old; he’s been in for almost 10 years,” Kardashian West told the podcast.

At the session, Kardashian West took to Twitter, where she shared photos with the caption, “It started with Ms. Alice, but looking at her and seeing the faces and learning the stories of the men and women I’ve met inside prisons I knew I couldn’t stop at just one. It’s time for REAL systemic change.”

I, along with many others, applaud Kardashian West for standing up for her beliefs and using her celebrity status to help others. Major news outlets covering the story ranging from Fox News to Rolling Stone to People magazine have been supportive of her efforts, as well.

Noticeably quiet about Kardashian West’s latest White House visit was the New York Post, which infamously mocked the star, calling her “Kim Thong Un” and referred to her first meeting with Trump as “The Other Big Ass Summit.” Although many love to mock her, Kardashian West received an outpouring of support from other reporters and media outlets, condemning The Post for its insensitive comments.

Perhaps the response surrounding Kardashian West’s work has been more positive this time around is because we can see it was not just a one-time publicity stunt. It is clear that she is passionate about this issue and is determined to make a difference. I look forward to hearing more about her future endeavors in criminal justice reform.

DeSantis comments draw criticism

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

Following the victories of Rep. Ron DeSantis and Andrew Gillum in Florida’s gubernatorial primaries, DeSantis’s word choice during an on-air interview with Fox, came under fire.

According to Rolling Stone, DeSantis stated, “The last thing we need to do is monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state.”

The article by Bob Moser, emphasizes DeSantis’s use of the word “monkey” and quotes Gillum’s response comparing the comment to a bullhorn.

Moser later refers to President Donald Trump as, “the bullhorner-in-chief,” making his personal stance on the issue clear. Even later stating that the president, “couldn’t be more grossly mistaken…” in regard to Trump’s comment stating that Gillum is DeSantis’s ideal opponent and insinuating the ease with which he believes DeSantis will win.

Moser then continues to use phrases such as “dog-whistling” when referring to Republican candidate’s calling out their opponents on various issues.

Seemingly in support of the Republican opposition, Moser emphatically says, “Checkmate!” in support of the response by Stacey Abrams, candidate for Georgia governor, to GOP attacks on her financial status.

It’s difficult to blame the author for any bias regarding these issues when he later elaborates on further anti-black anecdotes about the Road to Power, an Idaho-based white supremacist group. During their time in Florida, Moore documents them as mocking Gillum through taunts such as, “I is Andrew Gillum. We Negroes…done made mud huts while white folks waste a bunch of time making their home out of wood an’ stone.”

The article ends on a somewhat positive note, affirming that racist jabs toward Gillum will only work in his favor during the election, giving the people something to vote against.

Although Moore may have expressed some personal opinions through various instances of pseudo-name-calling, he had evidence, anecdotes, and direct quotes in support of all claims made.

Additionally, in situations with vehement racism, it grows increasingly difficult to remain neutral which may have resulted in the over encompassing evil-versus-good feeling of the article.