Post examines reorganization plan


A news article reported and written byin the Health & Science section of The Washington Post discusses a new plan to reorganize parts of the executive branch of the federal government. Click for the June 21 article: Government reorganization plan embraces conservative goals for the safety net.

Besides the Trump administration’s proposal to reorganize specific subdivisions of the federal government, the administration is also explicitly requesting the implementation of specific requirements. These requirements encompass having people work in preparation for jobs to qualify. I agree with the idea of having possible standards implemented as a satisfactory passage, but believe their should also be additional options to choose from besides the requirements that have been listed, such as education.

The authors are good at being subtly bi-partisan by clearly differentiating the conduct of both parties without bias but rather rationally.

They specifically target the popular rhetorical opinions of the media that classifies the ideals of the parties to the public eye. For example, the following paragraph:

    The blueprint does not itself contain funding cuts for food stamps, cash assistance, Medicaid or other longtime pillars of the government’s safety net. But it runs alongside President Trump’s efforts in his budgets to slash funding for such programs. And it would buttress a case for reductions by pulling together programs in ways that make clearer how much the government is spending.

The reflective overlook of the article does not depicts the character of President Trump negatively rather they choose to articulate his ideology. They’re attentive to the rhetorical ideology the president has originally promised on his campaign but also observes the application of his ideology. The continuous tone of voice has been neutral in comparison to  the tone of mockery the news media often have for the president.

The article did fall short in educating the public as to the foundational elements of the context. The majority of the article had various questions rather than answers in which made me, as the reader, feel slightly informed but still not fully comprehending the material.

Negative news coverage hurts Tesla


Tesla, a very well-known luxury vehicle company, has been exposed by the news media in much negative light the last few days. Apparently, a Tesla employee confessed to sabotaging the company by disclosing confidential information as well as making changes to the computer code of the company’s manufacturing operating system.

After reading this story, I decided to Google search more information about Tesla and the company only to find many reports of these cars catching on fire— specifically the new Model 3. These stories can be traced all the way back to January.

These fires are allegedly caused from the new model’s battery. According to an article on Digital Trends, employees claim some workers, who lack training, routinely install the lithium-ion cells in the battery pack too close to each other, which could cause the battery to short out or catch fire.

Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, sent Digital Trends an e-mail denying the allegations. On the other hand, Tesla’s projected manufacturing goal for September was 1,500 new Model 3 cars. In October, they were only able to produce 260. It is my opinion that this projection led Musk to do whatever he could to speed up the production process in order to reach the goal, but like most things in life, taking shortcuts will get you nowhere.

Now Musk is bashing journalists about their recent coverage even though Tesla admits most of its sales have come from the news media. After everything is said and done, this coverage has changed many people’s view on Tesla and their vehicles. Some on waiting lists have pulled out their investments and the companies shares dropped five percent on Tuesday.

These reports show the type of impact the news media has on a businesses success. Businesses rely heavily on news coverage of their products for sales and Tesla is currently suffering from its bad press.

Mass shooters seek media coverage


Today, an article published by Vox caught my eye. The headline was The Trenton, New Jersey, mass shooting isn’t getting much national attention. After reading the article, I asked myself, do mass shootings even need to be getting attention more attention than they already are?

Mass shootings, although tragic and heartbreaking, are seen as gold (in terms of content) for news media outlets. It is their gateway to all subjects controversial— gun control, mental health, and so forth. This is an outlet’s chance to use a national event to lure readers and viewers in-a chance to inform the public.

Yes- it is the news media’s role to cover all things newsworthy, but journalists don’t always understand the repercussions that come with this task.

Readers seek detail and that’s what journalists want to provide because, if not, then they’ll lack an audience. But sometimes, that depth can be seen as invasive and counter-productive.

When I say invasive, I speak for those whose parents are forced to mourn their lost child, or whose brother must suffer the loss of a sister.

But when I speak of counter-productivity, it is that very detailed reporting that enhances the recurring mass shootings our country faces.

In a way, the extensive coverage of mass shootings brings fame and recognition to the perpetrator. Presenting these shooters’ names in headlines, publishing their photos and sharing information about their personal lives is almost commemorating them for their actions. These people don’t deserve to be talked about but the coverage creates popularity by exposing them as a household name.

For this type of  event, I believe news reports should keep the victims, their families and the perpetrators anonymous. It is important for the people of our country to know what is happening and where but anonymity could help others who want the same attention from following the same footsteps.

When you give that person (in this case the shooter) attention, you are feeding into their desperate need to be known and talked about.

An example I can think of is the uni-bomber (which I will not name) in the 1980s. After the FBI printed his manuscripts, which contained his thoughts and ideas, there were many who agreed with his views and created a fan base. With the Columbine shooting, many outcasts also praised the shooters and created a cult known as The Columbiners.

These people should not be recognized for the mere issue that attention leads to popularity, and popularity leads to a following. Unfortunately, the news media know the more they give, the more people will listen and read. Censorship of any kind is difficult for journalists especially when they are committed to reporting the full truth— but at what expense are they doing so?

Singapore summit news lacks objectivity


President Trump met with Kim Jong Un on Tuesday and they have come to an agreement to work toward “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

The news media have covered this issue with much scrutiny towards Trump. In other words, no one seems to show the president support for efforts to reach peace with North Korea. The coverage comes with very little information because the agreement lacks detail. Although there is much talk about getting rid of these nuclear weapons, there is no deadline set for when and no guarantee that the agreement will be irreversible.

The lack of detail has been leading journalists to cover this issue with much skepticism. News outlets believe that Trump is giving up too much and reporters are not hiding it. Objectivity has flown out the window for this summit’s coverage and Republican U.S. Senator Marco Rubio was not happy about it. Rubio jumped in to defend Trump by pointing out the news media’s “hypocrisy.”

“Presidents meeting with #KJU exposed incredible hypocrisy of many in media,” Rubio tweeted. “When Obama did these things, he was described as enlightened. When Trump does it he is reckless & foolish. 1 yr ago they attacked Trump for leading us towards war,now attack for being too quick for peace.”

The New York Times’ opinion columnist, Nicholas Kristof, wrote an article where he too criticized the exchange between Trump and Kim Jong Un. Kristof believes Trump was”out-negotiated” by Kim.

Rubio came back in with another two cents to swoop Trump away from scrutiny. Kristof’s piece was one out of the many opinionated journalists who expressed the same view about the exchange.

This issue leaves many questions unanswered for both sides. It is hard for the news media to cover an issue like this objectively without the right amount of detail needed to inform  readers and viewers. If politicians want to start seeing less “fake news,” then they should give the news media enough information to avoid misinformation. Until we get more detail, journalists will most likely continue criticism towards Trump.

Suicides lead to news guidelines


The deaths of prominent figures such as Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain in the past week have brought much scrutiny about suicide news reporting. Mental health experts and researchers are saying that this type of news reporting could have life-or-death consequences for readers.

In recent years, public health officials have noticed a correlation between news coverage about suicides and an increase in suicide deaths. That discovery has the World Health Organization suggesting guidelines for news about people who take their own lives.

But many voices in the news media, as well as medical professionals, are pressing for standardized rules that can be used throughout newsrooms across the country.

Dr. Dan Reidenberg, executive director of the suicide prevention center, SAVE, has published guidelines drawn from scientific research.

In his guidelines, he suggests that news outlets should be including phone numbers and links for suicide hotlines and treatment centers (something that has been done in the NBC News reports about Spade and Bourdain).

In my opinion, I don’t feel like the news media have reported on these issues in an insensitive manner, but because the news media are more influential in shaping the minds of younger audiences, it is something we must consider.

Although we do not know these people (Spade and Bourdain) personally, we feel some connection with their their products and shows. In a way, there are more people than just their immediate families who are affected by these incidents. I can see the need to tip-toe around those who are already feeling vulnerable and are considering the same path.

I think it is important for journalists to critique each other and develop discussion around this issue. There is a line of ethics that should not be crossed, but some people need to be reminded of it. At the same time, a reporter’s job is to seek the truth and report it. Creating guidelines could be an unnecessary way of censoring the media and if it starts there, who knows what other guidelines may be implemented in the future.

Kate Spade’s death leaves questions


Kate Spade was found dead in her Manhattan apartment on the morning of June 5 after she allegedly took her own life. Articles on this tragedy can be found on any major digital news reporting site such as The New York Times, ABC News, CNN and NPR. Because of Spade’s contribution to the fashion industry, digital fashion magazines are also covering her death including websites like, and

For the purpose of analyzing coverage by the news media on Kate Spade’s death, I chose BBC as the most reliable source of news. Click here to reference BBC article:

This story began like any other breaking news story should — inverted pyramid style with the most important information highlighted at the top of the article and the least important at the end. The lead included who, what and where, but was missing the when. The next sentence stated the current investigation of her death which gave us an insight that the incident happened recently.

As a reader, the next thing I would want to know is, who is Kate Spade? BBC did just that. The story informed us on her contribution to fashion as a shoes, clothes and accessories designer.

After that, the article described details of the incident. BBC explained the discovery of Spade’s “unresponsive” body, as well as a note that was left behind. In my opinion, I feel like there was a lot of information that was left out that could’ve been included in this section of the article. Some things I would be curious about is whether or not there were signs of depression that led her to take her own life. If she allegedly took her own life, how did she do it?

BBC provided basic information but didn’t dive into detail. After the basic summary of the incident, the article ended with more information about Spade’s fashion legacy. The coverage felt incomplete and left me, as the reader, with many unanswered questions. BBC was not the only source who could’ve used more detail in their reporting.

On the other hand, I believe the news media are attempting to respect the privacy of Spade’s family. In the next few days, these news outlets will continue to fill in the missing pieces as the police investigation progresses.

Post takes stab at Kardashian initiative


Kim Kardashian made her way to the Oval Office this Wednesday to meet with President Trump in order to discuss prison reform and sentencing. Many people applauded the reality star’s political initiative.

While meeting Trump, Kardashian spoke for 63-year-old Alice Marie Johnson who was sentenced to prison with no parole for a first-time drug offense.

Johnson has served 20 years in prison. Kardashian tweeted, “It is our hope that the President will grant clemency to Ms. Alice Marie Johnson.”

While some believe that Kardashian is using her platform to make a positive impact, others see this as a PR hoax.

The biggest critic overall happened to be the New York Post, which mocked Kardashian as “Kim Thong Un” and referred to the meeting as a “Big Ass Summit” on the front page. Journalists and reporters had a lot to say about the cover. CNN’s Don Lemon defended the reality star and described the paper’s cover as “appalling” and “sexist.”

Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty added, “Can we just stand back for a moment and acknowledge the sexism of this headline? @KimKardashian is far from the first celebrity to understand the power of using her spotlight to call attention to a serious issue.”

To publish such a mean spirited cover against someone who was just trying to advocate for criminal justice reform seems highly inefficient. We should support citizen participation within our democracy.

The news media are turning political activism into a joke enabling others to back away from it because of possible criticism.

I was happy to see other journalists chime in to support Kardashian. Although coverage like this diminishes the value of good journalism, the outcome of political discourse and conversation, especially between young adults, outweighs the negative impact. It’s important for people to see this and talk about why it’s wrong. Publications like this also help the public distinguish good sources of news from bad.

U.S. media adores royal wedding


The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was held on May 19 and was covered by many local and national news stations including ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and The Washington Post to name a few.

Harry, member of the British royal family, took the hand of former American actress, Meghan Markle, in marriage. Because of her background, broadcast and print journalists repetitively stressed how rare this union of marriage was for the British monarchy. Not only is Meghan an American actress, but is also a bi-racial divorcee. American news stations used the wedding as a symbolic gesture of acceptance and unity between both countries. More importantly, the wedding was seen as a progressive footprint in the monarchy’s past customs.

CBS, out of all the different networks, was the one that seemed to be the most uninformed and over-the-top. The voice overs for the b-roll were obvious narrations of things that were going on within the footage. Ex: “Here she is walking down the aisle.” No extra information was given that couldn’t already be known from what was playing on the screen. In addition, they had trouble informing their viewers on who designed the wedding dress, as well as some other basic facts that could’ve been checked before air-time.

The media was heavily focused on who the attendees were and what they were wearing. The reporters on CBS even singled out which attendees were “A-listers” and “B-listers.” I would’ve liked to have seen the media cover more information about why this was such a prominent moment in British history or even how it was relevant to the rest of the world.

When I think of news, I think of the words prominence, relevance, impact and timeliness. The news outlets I tuned into had most of these characteristics, but they seemed to lack enough impact and relevance which led me to categorize this event as nothing but entertainment news.

As for ABC, I found them to be more informed and concise than any other station. Aside from the usual on-air fluff and filler comments, they used historical references to inform viewers on family ties. ABC attempted to cover possible questions viewers may have while tuning into the wedding. Who is Prince Harry? Who did he descend from? What is the Windsor Castle and why is it so important?

ABC used graphics and maps to show us where the castle was in relation to the church, the routes where the parade was held, etc. For those who have never visited England, this was a good addition to the segment.

ABC called on correspondents like Paula Feris, Lloyd Webber, and interviewed Andrew Morton (a royal biographer who studied Diana and Meghan Markel). They had informants, numerous sources to back up their information, and compelling historical facts.

I was also surprised at the amount of hype our local stations put out before and during the wedding. South Florida stations were broadcasting the wedding and commentating in re-decorated newsrooms resembling customary British tea parties.

Local business and bars were celebrating, movie theaters opened early to air the wedding on their screens, and tea shops were selling Prince Harry and Meghan Markel memorbilia. Aside from the media, businesses were using this event as a way to reel in the public. The sad part is that it seemed to work! Even the media covered these local events (see media below).

Overall, media coverage of the Royal Wedding was marked by fascination, criticism, speculation and an exaggerated level of significance. This event had some journalists reporting with disparity trying to pump out as much nonsense as possible. At this point, it is safe to say that the media (at all levels) will report on just about anything that will increase ratings and readership.