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.

Post examines reorganization plan

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

A news article reported and written by Amy Goldstein and Caitlin Dewey in 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

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

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

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

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

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

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

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

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

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

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 HarpersBazaar.com, TownandCountryMag.com and Cosmopolitan.com.

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: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44374844

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

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

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

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

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.

Shark attack halts Australia competition

Posted on by

By KRISTIAN DEL ROSARIO

During a surf competition in Gracetown, Australia, a shark attacked a surfer. This incident has forced a temporary suspension of the international surfing competition.

The victim was a man in his 30s, the shark bit his leg on Monday morning. He managed to paddle back to shore and a rescue helicopter ferried him to the hospital.

Peter Jovic, a surf photographer told ABC news he witnessed the attack.

“I saw the guy who had been attacked get separated form the surf board and then start to paddle for an inside wave, which he managed to body surf all the way in,” he said. ” They got him to shore and started working on him to stem the bleeding.”

St John Ambulance said in a tweet, “he is conscious and breathing and being treated for leg injuries.”

NBA 2018 playoffs begin Saturday

Posted on by

By JABARI WILBON

By now, the long 82-game NBA season has come to a close and the playoffs begin Saturday. This year, especially compared to last, there have been many intriguing stories and moments that will definitely make these playoffs worth watching. Last year, everyone knew that the Golden State Warriors were significantly better than everyone else and they showed that in the playoffs by nearly sweeping every team they played.

The Boston Celtics were everyone’s pick to upset the Cavaliers this year in the playoffs. But after an injury to Gordon Hayward and a recent injury to Kyrie Irving, the Celtics are without their two best players.

News articles all across the Internet and social media have surfaced about Irving’s status and the Celtics decision to rest him until next year. Coverage has been heavy and persistent because of the aftermath of him leaving Cleveland and his rivalry with Lebron James. The media has been talking about how much it would mean for Kyrie to eventually overthrow Lebron and have continually updated on his injury.

The Washington Post, along with other newspapers, have put off a full first round prediction for each series. Included in this article is a summary of each team’s regular season and then a prediction of who will win the series and why.

SBnation.com has an article that included the schedule for all of the games in the first round. Overall, the coverage for the upcoming playoffs are on everyone’s radar and will eventually turn in to articles reviewing series and talking about the next series.

Sports Nation also made an article of a hypothetical where the playoffs weren’t split up into East and West. Instead, it took the 16 best teams in the league by record, ranked them, and matched them up this way.

This was a very interesting article because this was something that has been talked about in the NBA for years: the idea of ignoring conferences and pooling all the teams in the league at once. If this had been done for this year, then the matches would be completely differently and a lot more intriguing.

The Celtics would play a tough west coast opponent in the first round in the Timberwolves. The Warriors would face a tough Utah Jazz team that would only have made the playoffs with this method of pooling.

Overall, coverage of the NBA playoffs is already heavy, even though it hasn’t started yet. All of the NBA analyst are tweeting their first round predictions and why they picked them. The 2018 playoffs should be a roller-coaster and the media is going to cover it to its fullest.

Enquirer accused of covering for Trump

Posted on by

By PATRICIA SANTANA

Popular celebrity magazine The National Enquirer is being accused of buying and burying stories that portray President Trump in an unfavorable light. This practice is known as “catch and kill.” It’s thought that David Pecker, publisher of the Enquirer and longtime friend of Trump, has been doing this as a favor to the president.

All the purchased stories relate to allegations of Trump having affairs.

According to the Washington Post, the source allegedly paid off by the National Enquirer is a former Trump Tower doorman, Dino Sajudin, who told the Enquirer that Trump had a child outside of wedlock and that top executives of the Trump Organization were aware. Sajudin claims to have been paid $30,000 for the exclusive rights to the story but the Enquirer never published it.

As reported by CNN, another source coming forward is Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model. McDougal was paid $150,000 for her account of an affair with Trump that lasted nine months. Allegedly, the deal included an agreement that McDougal would publish regular columns on aging and fitness in the Enquirer. McDougal’s story was never run, and only a small portion of the agreed-to columns were published. American Media Inc. claims that McDougal did not write the columns.

Trump has denied all allegations of cheating.

Of all the news outlets that I read from to learn more about this story, I found the one with the most comprehensive coverage of this story was CNN. CNN’s homepage had more stories on this scandal than the Miami Herald, The Washington Post and The New York Times. On the Herald’s homepage, there was not a single story on the scandal to be found today. I found this surprising because it’s a story of national relevance. In the case of the Times, I had to scroll to find a link to the story.

I think this speaks to how desensitized news outlets are becoming to the latest Trump scandals and also how difficult it is to report on a Trump scandal when there are so many happening all the time.

The CNN coverage took many angles. There was an article reporting on the “catch and kill” practice and on Pecker and another article reporting on the different sources paid off by the Enquirer. CNN also published a poll on what Americans think of the Enquirer’s coverage of Trump. The website also had a video uploaded with reporters discussing the story. I found this to be very comprehensive coverage, and I feel that I learned the most from CNN.

The coverage by the New York Times focused more on the investigation into the Enquirer and its possible ties to the Trump campaign. The investigation is sparking a First Amendment debate and it is looking into whether any campaign laws were violated.

If it’s true that the Enquirer is engaging in this “catch and kill” practice as a favor to Trump, I think that’s a very troubling ethical issue. Journalism is supposed to speak truth to power, not facilitate its lies.

Raid of lawyer’s office and its coverage

Posted on by

By GRACE SMITH

On Monday, Michael Cohen’s offices were raided by FBI officials. Cohen, who is President Trump’s lawyer, was investigated in relations to deals the lawyer may have made to keep women affiliated with Trump quiet about their past relationships.

This unexpected and largely shocking raid was triggered by Stormy Daniel’s accusations she was paid off to keep quiet about her sexual relationship with trump, who was married during the alleged affair, as well as the now infamous “Access Hollywood” tape where Trump makes vulgar comments about women and how he could “do just anything to them” and they would let him.

The warrant, which was issued early Monday, includes everything from financial documents to explore possible payoffs to emails, which would reveal communications between Cohen and President Trump, especially during the period in which Trump cautiously referenced his extramarital encounters.

The coverage of this event is not lacking, for several reasons. First of all, the tension and controversial surrounding President Trump’s affiliates and possible crimes has been bubbling since he entered office. With the rising concern over Russian interference as well as Facebook and Cambridge Analytics bombshells, all eyes have been on the White House to not only see how they react but also how they handle the mounting issues.

Because the raid on an lawyer’s office is so rare, the story with its basic facts is gaining a lot of attention, so news outlets do not feel the need to embellish or add extra details to make it seem more scandalous, though many sites do include links to previous stories that cover Stormy Daniels and the “Access Hollywood” tape mentioned above. The issue with coverage here, to me, is not how much is being covered or if it is being covered truthfully (I believe many, if not all reliable outlets are doing an excellent job with bringing people the true facts) but rather who is covering it.

Fox News as long been recognized as a very conservative, extreme right channel. Their coverage of events differs greatly from others in how it is treated and highlighted. They may cover the March for Our Lives just as accurately as CNN or MSNBC, but follow their facts-based news blurb with an hour of talking heads speaking negatively about the cause, the kids, and/or gun control. We seem some backlash to this, as in the Laura Ingraham case, but overall it just seems to be an extra bit added onto people’s personally sculpted echo-chambers.

However, as far as the FBI’s raise on Cohen, the popular conservative news outlet has been almost silent. There are several tweets circulating all over Twitter showing how almost all major news stations are covering the raid while a screenshot of Fox News sits below with an anchor covering panda’s sex drives.

Vox, an alternative, internet-based news outlet, underlined this in an article “Why Fox News limited coverage of the raid of Trump’s lawyer’s office” alongside several line graphs.

The graphics show how MSNBC and CNN devoted slightly over twenty percent of their airtime to the raid, while Fox News barely jumped above seven percent. The amounts become slightly more even when Fox covered Trump’s rant against the raid.

When it did cover the raid, the coverage was focused on a deeper lying conspiracy against the president and his allies, often called “deep state” by extreme right-wing supporters, instead of why the raid was even happening. It is a mindset that is convinced bureaucrats are controlling the news and elections to try to shame and ridicule conservatives, and it is the rhetoric that Fox News, most notable Sean Hannity, uses to justify Trump’s controversial staffing decisions and anything negative that happens against Trump.

In the end, Fox News as long been a haven for hardcore Trump supporters and they know their base will block out a majority of negative news and commentary about their president. But this is where the journalistic decision between maintaining and audience and covering what is relevant and important comes into play and I believe Fox made the wrong choice.

Pace of play set to change baseball

Posted on by

By BRENNAN PRUSAK

Baseball is America’s pastime. You might not be able to tell from ratings alone, and even if you ask Americans, only about 9 percent will tell you that it’s their favorite sport.

Although the 2017 post season had more viewers than ever and drew more attention from networks than it has in years, the sport seems to be hitting a lull as a whole. This is largely due to the extremely long regular season and the length of the games, averaging a record three hours and five minutes in 2017.

Due to the groaning from fans, the MLB has started to experiment with new rules raise the pace of the game and make it more exciting. Now the MLB has a tough question on their hands; how do they implement new rules to try and bump popularity without upsetting or alienating the audience they already have?

The first rule that was introduced in 2018 was a new mound visit rule. Starting opening day of the 2018 regular season, each team was allotted 6 mound visits per game, gaining an extra visit for each extra inning of play (if necessary). This is a very small change but was not met with open arms my MLB players, especially catchers.

“Big change? I am not quite sure, but it’s going to be different and difficult because you are limited on the amounts you can go out there,’’ said Gary Sanchez, catcher for the New York Yankees. “It’s a combination of things. Sometimes you go out there to help in any way possible to calm [the pitcher] down. Sometimes it’s to change the signs, sometimes it is both.”

While Sanchez and other catchers are less than thrilled with the new rule, it doesn’t appear that it will change the sport in a way that many fear the rules that follow may. During the offseason, the MLB began discussions to add two new rules that could fundamentally change the sport.

First, it was suggested that managers of the losing team could choose whatever three batters they wanted to lead off the 9th inning, rather than picking up where the lineup left off in the 8th. The next rule brought up would place a runner on second base at the start of each extra inning. Both of these rules were suggested to limit the length of games and prevent extra innings from becoming too, well, extra.

While limiting mound visits may cause catchers to rethink their strategy, trying to take extra innings out of baseball would be like taking overtime out of football or basketball. There are no ties in baseball, so as the sport stands now they play until there is a winner, whether that’s in the 9th inning or the 19th.

The majority of players, fans and sports news media alike are all firmly against this radical of a change in the sport.

“Some of the greatest clutch moments in MLB history came when the best hitter in the order was not hitting,” said CBS sports writer Matt Davis. “Sometimes the best hitters on the team do come up and come through due to the natural order of things.”

Baseball has been around for more than 100 years and has been played by the same basic rules for all that time. Why change it for an audience that you don’t even have yet? Although these rules may leave many scratching their heads, it seems like they will work their way into the game with time. So, will players and fans embrace the new game or will it be the downfall of America’s pastime?

The end of one and done in basketball?

Posted on by

By BRENNAN PRUSAK

In lieu of the recent FBI probe and the end of March Madness, another topic has come into focus regarding college basketball. Is the one and done good or bad for the sport, and more importantly, the player? A number of freshman stars declared for the NBA draft after their first year in the NCAA, which begs the question, what did they gain?

Following their exit from the NCAA tournament, Deandre Ayton, Marvin Bagley Jr., Mo Bamba, Michael Porter Jr., Lonnie Walker Jr, Mikal Bridges, Colin Sexton, and many other stars declared for the 2018 NBA draft.

All of these players are currently freshman in college but are set to leave school before even completing a full year. In fact, Michael Porter Jr. only played in two college games, yet he has decided to enter the NBA Draft. The one and done era of college basketball is in full swing, but it may be coming to an end soon as many believe that the trend isn’t great for the game itself.

“Nowadays, these coaches are just like daycare owners,” said Kevin Durant, a former one-and-done player at the University of Texas. “They’re like, We’re just going to get these guys for a year and we’re not going to really coach them, because I know they’re going to be out the next year. That’s not how basketball’s supposed to played. That’s not how you’re supposed to be coached. You can’t teach the game like that.”

Durant raises an interesting point there, as these players are essentially a rental for the school’s program. They go to classes for a semester and a half so that they are eligible to play and practice, and then sign with an NBA team for however many millions of dollars they are offered. They aren’t part of a plan for the future of their teams, as they’ll be gone in a few months, so it puts coaches in a very tough spot.

What can they possibly teach a kid whose goal is to leave for the NBA in eight months? Preaching teamwork and creating a drive for a national championship, which is an extremely team-oriented goal, isn’t going to hit home with a kid who’d rather be drafted in the Top 5, which could cause a rift in the team.

Players and the sports news media alike seem to agree on what the future will hold for college basketball and the one and dones. The most common belief is that the NCAA will require its athletes to play for at least two years before entering the draft, and as a result, more of the top players may end up skipping college to either play overseas or enter the draft right out of high school.

This would result in college basketball becoming more of a team game as opposed to one centered around stars and their supporting cast, while top talents could compete at a higher level and develop quicker, along with the ability to market themselves right out of high school. Whether this eventually materializes or not, it will be interesting to see the direction that NCAA basketball heads in during the next five or so years.