Tag Archives: Journalism

Man arrested for three church fires

Posted on by

By CAMILA MUNERA

CNN posted an article Thursday evening entitled, “Suspect in Louisiana black church fires is the son of sheriff’s deputy, officials say.”

The article summarizes the story of Holden Matthews, a 21-year-old that recently just burned down three historically black churches in Louisiana including St. Mary Baptist Church in Port Barre, which burned on March 26. This was followed by Greater Union Baptist Church in Opelousas on April 2 and, two days later, Mount Pleasant Baptist Church in the same town.

The article notes that Matthews may have been influenced by black metal music and its associated history with church burnings, mentions the state fire marshal this past Thursday.

Matthews is currently being charged with three counts of simple arson on a religious building. Each charge carries a penalty for over 15 years. The most ironic part of this devastating matter is that Matthews has no previous history of violence or prior arrests, officials noted. 

Matthew’s investigation is still ongoing and federal officials are looking to see whether or not the fires were meant to represent a hate crime. 

To add more irony, Matthews is the son of a local sheriff’s deputy. St. Landry Parish Sheriff Bobby Guidroz who is reportedly very good friends with Matthew’s father broke the harsh news to him. Guidroz  mentions how the father was shocked and hurt as any father would be.

This breaking news is a reflection of the racist behaviors that continue to happen around the world. It is a sad reality but it needs to be dealt with as it is completely unfair to the African Americans who consider their church to be a safe place.  

Teen found may be boy missing 8 years

Posted on by

By CAMILA MUNERA

CNN posted an article titled, “Teen found wandering in Kentucky says he escaped kidnappers after 7 years,” written by Faith Karimi and Holly Yan.

The article summarizes the story of Timmothy Pitzen. A 6-year-old that disappeared almost eight years ago after his mother committed suicide in a motel room. She left a note saying her son was with people who loved him. “You’ll never find him” she noted.

The article notes how the mother struggled with depression. Her marriage was failing and her biggest fear was to have her son taken from her due to her mental health issues. One can assume this is why she didn’t let the boy stay with the father, maybe in a way she was jealous. 

Now years later Timmothy has possibly appeared again. The article explains how police in Illinois are currently waiting for DNA test results to see if this teenager really is Timmothy Pitzen.

I find it really important for the news to share a story like this one because sometimes people don’t tend to take mental health seriously. These are some of the consequences when you don’t. Some people don’t understand that having a mental health disorder that is not treated will begin to consume and change you, the worst part is that you won’t even notice. 

I want to believe this teen is Timmothy and I hope to hear the rest of the story. His family never stopped looking for him for years.

Georgia teachers bully student

Posted on by

By CAMILA MUNERA

Yahoo! News published an article recently entitled, “Georgia teachers suspended after allegedly mocking student’s sexuality, teasing him about ‘boyfriend’.” The article is written by Mark Osborne from “Good Morning America.”

I for one, was very shocked to read this headline. I knew bullying still happened today in society but I would never expect it from teachers.  Osborne did a great job of making the article easy to read describing how Jean Mott, the mother of 14-year-old student at Shiloh Middle School located in Snellville, a suburb northeast of Atlanta, was devastated to see her son come home in tears. The son told the mother how he had been bullied by classmates because of two teachers’ comments.

The teachers’ comments included, “Your boyfriend was cheating on you while you were away. Oh, you two make a really good couple.” Not only did the teachers say this to the student, but they did so in front of the whole entire class.

The school has taken action by following through investigations and have suspended the teachers for the time being. Another investigation that is still ongoing is  being conducted by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission. According to the article, the commission “has the ability to pull the teaching certificates for both teachers based on the outcome.”

I hope the school takes action and fires these two teachers immediately. With all the violence going on lately, I feel like school is the one place a child should enjoy going to as a place to learn and grow. Teachers should be there to inspire and motivate you, not bring you down. 

Facebook faces password trouble

Posted on by

By CAMILA MUNERA

CNN Business posted an article on March 21 by Donie O’Sullivan and Kevin Collier. The article discusses how, once again, Facebook has made headlines concerning its staff. We’re told that Facebook staff had access to hundreds of millions of people’s passwords.

The article explained how users that were mostly affected were those using its Facebook Lite product, which is a simplified version of Facebook. This product serves to help users who experience slower internet connection.

I am honestly not surprised with the news of Facebook having hundreds of passwords. The internet is tricky and nothing is ever completely private. In a world like today with so much advanced technology, there is barely any space left for privacy. 

Although, this news does not look good for Facebook at all, especially, as mentioned in the article.The news comes days after the one-year anniversary of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. This scandal revealed that Facebook shared the personal data of about 87 million users with a political data firm.

This latest news shows that we shouldn’t share anything too private not only on Facebook but any social media platform. You can never really know much private information is being looked at and it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Sullivan and Collier did a good job on this article by not making it too lengthy and getting to the point in a quick but efficient manner. They also attached a video explaining the situation in more detail. 

Markle online abuse worries royal staff

Posted on by

By CAMILA MUNER

CNN posted an article entitled “The racist online abuse of Meghan Make has put royal staff on high alert,” written by Max Foster.

Foster did a neat job with this article providing useful and interesting information. He not only provided factual information but related pictures and videos as well. 

The article emphasizes the vulgar online hate the Duchess of Sussex has received in the past few months after announcing her pregnancy. This has made Kensington Palace staff devote more time to target social media trolls by blocking abusive Twitter and Instagram accounts. 

It showed that most hate accounts were against Meghan Markle because she is of black descent breaking royal protocol.  Foster remarks how “Meghan and Harry’s forthcoming child will be the first known mixed-race baby in the royal family’s thousand-year history.” 

The article shows a very important and under-looked aspect of journalism that needs to be changed. Much of the hate Markle and also Kate Middleton receive is due to the news media. Foster narrates how “the pressure to produce ever more dramatic headlines to drive traffic is intense.” He also mentioned that Markle has had to deal with much more hate than Middleton had to when she first joined the royal family.

The media can sometimes illustrate the on-going issue of racism and selfishness in our society. Journalism should always be true and raw. I’m glad CNN posted an article discussing the lies told about the media such as spreading rumors of Markle and Middleton not getting along. 

Ivanka stirs debate over Green New Deal

Posted on by

By CAMILIA MUNERA

Yahoo! published an article called “Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Fires Back At Ivanka Trump: I ‘Actually Worked For Tips & Hourly Wages In My Life.”

The article was originally published on the HuffPost and was just recently uploaded 10 hours ago. 

Ed Mazza, the person who wrote this article, did a great job of explaining the topic clearly, concise and to the point.

As many of you may know, Ivanka Trump is President Donald Trump’s daughter and advisor. She just attacked part of the Green New Deal. 

The deal, backed by Democrats, has job and wage guarantees, something Ivanka claims that Americans don’t want. Why in the world would Americans not want this?

Ivanka Trump told Fox News host Steve Hilton in an interview that “I don’t think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something,” she continues by saying that “I’ve spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get.”

Ivanka Trump later clarified that she does in fact support a minimum wage but not for those who are unwilling to work. Ivanka was silent on the topic of  a “living wage” though for those who are willing to work. 

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was not happy with the statement as she expresses herself on Twitter. She fired back by saying

“As a person who actually worked for tips & hourly wages in my life, instead of having to learn about it 2nd-hand, I can tell you that most people want to be paid enough to live. A living wage isn’t a gift, it’s a right. Workers are often paid far less than the value they create.” 

I, for one, am really happy and thankful that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez spoke out because when a person like Ivanka Trump, someone in a high position says such a thing it’s truly harmful to our citizens.

Light should be shed on this topic because of the recent government shut-down, many government workers weren’t even being paid. A plan such as the Green New Deal would help prevent this in the future. 

Mazza also did a great job of providing pictures of the tweets Rep. Ocasio Cortez wrote and provided a video explaining the topic more in detail. 

Parkland victims reflect one year later

Posted on by

By CAMILA MUNERA

The New York Times published an article on Feb. 14 remembering the Parkland Incident. It is the one-year anniversary since the devastating and heartbreaking shooting that happened at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school in Parkland, Fla. The article written by Patricia Mazzei is beautifully written since it not only outlines the horrific events that happened this day but also shows the lasting impact one year later. 

In the article, photographs are taken by Eve Edelheit. These photographs I believe are the strongest element of this article and why photography is so important in journalism. In a series of interviews nine members from the Stoneman Douglas community including students, teachers, police officers and parents reflect on this tragic event a year later. In each segment of the article there is a photo of the person interviewed and beneath is their story. 

I love the way Mazzei approaches this matter because instead of writing an article explaining all the horrible events that occurred that day again— she let the people who actually experienced it be able to shine and tell their story. Reading these stories are extremely impactful hearing all the different things these people had to go through. It is important to know these stories because after this school shooting occurred, many citizens wanted to see a change but shootings in America and around the world continue today. 

The photographs are mostly candid, showing the true emotions the person felt. This article felt very raw and that I could relate to these people interviewed on an emotional and personal level even though I haven’t been what they have been through. It shows again and again the courage people have when violence outbursts occur and how we all must come together in order to remain strong. I hope journalism continues to use this approach of photography and journalism merged together because it makes the article and the story itself more relatable and interesting. 

Winter cold deadly for Iowa student

Posted on by
Reply

By CAMILA MUNERA

Yahoo! News has included an article by HuffPost earlier in the day discussing the devastating death of a college student. Gerald Belz, an 18-year-old freshman at the University of Iowa was found Wednesday morning near his dorm. He was then taken to the hospital where he passed away. 

Jenna Amatulli, the reporter who covered this story, did a great job of balancing all the information that came with this story. She didn’t provide more information than necessary about Belz. 

Amatulli noted important facts about the weather saying how the polar vortex has done its fair share of damage to the country sending temperatures to an extreme low. The university had weather of minus 21 degrees, with the windchill as low as minus 51 degrees. 

Although this is a heartbreaking story, I appreciate news companies sharing this. Belz is not the only individual who has passed away in the past few days due to the extremely low temperatures. 

I see most news companies today overload stories on celebrities and Donald Trump. News that truly doesn’t concern us citizens as broadly as all the issues occurring in the country today. 

Even if you aren’t living in a cold area, maybe you have loved ones that do. 

Amatulli also did a neat job of including extra sources such as photos, a video, and a link to more information updates on the weather.

Overall, I found this article very interesting and helpful. I hope more news organizations focus on current events that need more attention brought to them and focus less on what our president is doing and what celebrities are going to do next. 

Should we cover celebrity fire losses?

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

With the extensive amount of tragedy occurring worldwide, it’s hard not only to keep up, but also to decide which event to express concern for.

I’d like to hope individuals common lack of concern regarding natural disasters and their impact is due to attention placed in other instances warranting concern. However, the coverage of the current damage caused by fires in California tell otherwise.

Plastered across various news outlets whenever a natural disaster occurs is the fatalities, those missing, and homes damaged or lost. The coverage of the Woolsey fire is the same, however differs because of celebrities that have been directly impacted.

Nearly every news media outlet has allocated special articles or segments to discuss celebrities such as Miley Cyrus and Gerard Butler losing their homes, as if it is more tragic or newsworthy than those who aren’t celebrities.

This phenomenon is both good and bad.

I condone the idea of special treatment for celebrity when hundreds of others suffer as well, however I know that these types of articles draw more attention to the events and probably indirectly contribute to increased aid to other victims.

It’s a moral conundrum of whether news outlets should give celebrities individual coverage of their losses when they really are the ones who suffer the least from all those affected, or if the attention these pieces bring to the victims is all worth it in the end.

Jon Stewart, news media genius

Posted on by

By NICOLAS IPARRAGUIRRE

This week, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta had his press credentials suspended after a controversial incident during President Trump’s post-midterm election press conference.

The incident stemmed from Acosta repeatedly asking the president questions about the migrant caravan heading toward the southern border, with Trump eventually cutting Acosta off. When a female aide attempted to remove the microphone from Acosta’s hand, he attempted to hold on and what has followed has been a circus.

In response to the incident, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a doctored video of the incident, accusing Acosta of placing his hands on the female aide. Producing an edited video and denying access can objectively be seen as the Trump administration acting in totalitarian fashion, but the news media have turned a winning issue for credibility into a food fight with the president.

Just last week, comedians Jon Stewart and Dave Chappelle sat down with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour to discuss various issues about comedy, Trump, and the press today. In discussing the media’s role in the age of Trump, Amanpour said, “But we the journalists, we I think believe that our job is to navigate the truth and do the fact-checking and all the rest of it.”

While this may be true, and most journalists do have this intention, Stewart’s response perfectly described why the news media have grown hostile in the face of Trump’s constant attacks.

“But I think the journalists have taken it personally,” Stewart said. “They’re personally offended and wounded by [Trump]. He baits them and they dive in — and what he’s done well I thought was to appeal to their own narcissism, to their own ego.”

Stewart’s understanding of the news media can be seen in Acosta’s actions during the post-midterm press conference. Acosta was asking a question about a hot-button issue (the migrant caravan) but was overtaken by his own ego and lashed out. While the administration’s response has been dishonest and possibly immoral, Acosta’s own antics have allowed what should be a one-sided issue to become more complex than it should be. Had he remained totally respectful, it would be impossible for anyone to condemn him.

Media cover Fox News star at rally

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

President Trump held a rally in Missouri on Monday Nov. 5. Per usual, each news outlet had something to say regarding the event, but the points covered vary dramatically.

In The Hill’s article, “CNN’s Camerota questions ‘news organization’ status of Fox News after Hannity appears at Trump rally,” the sole focus of the piece was Sean Hannity’s presence and CNN’s reaction.

Following explicit statements that he wasn’t going to campaign with Trump, Fox News star Hannity did the exact opposite.

The piece includes quotes from CNN show host Alisyn Camerota and excerpts from Hannity’s supportive words toward Trump and his campaign during the rally.

In Fox News article, ‘Crowd at Trump rally sings ‘Amazing Grace’ after woman collapses,’ by Benjamin Brown there is not one mention of Hannity. Instead, the focus is on, what Brown paints as, Trump’s heroic gestures toward a woman who collapsed at the event.

The article covers Trumps five-minute delay to pray for the women, the crowd breaking out into singing “Amazing Grace,” and a brief history of the song itself.

Once again while both pieces contain factual information regarding the event, its the parts of the event they chose to cover that make all the difference.

Bolsonaro wins election in Brazil

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

After significant strife and controversy within the presidential election, far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro is Brazil’s new president-elect.

While news media outlets may remain unbiased through their use of language, the angles and topics they cover regarding this election clearly convey the publication’s stance.

An article published by Fox News, “Brazil elects anti-establishment candidate Jair Bolsonaro as president,” by Frank Miles, chooses to only highlight certain aspects of the candidate and election.

Through labeling Bolsonaro as an “anti-establishment candidate” and “political outsider” and referring to his “rebel image,” Miles paints the candidate’s stance in an almost positive light.

The piece does address the reservations some had regarding Bolsonaro, but only in reference to how his supporters overcame them. Additionally, it only contains direct quotations from those who voted for Bolsonaro.

Per usual, CNN’s coverage differs dramatically from Fox’s.

In a piece headlined “Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro wins presidential election in Brazil,” by Flora Charner and Marcia Reverdosa, Bolsonaro’s campaign and subsequent election are portrayed as detrimental to Brazil and the world at large.

The article details how Bolsonaro plans to open parts of the Amazon rain forest to development, “the Women Against Bolsonaro march,” and parallels to Trump through their shared habit of indulging in oppressive rhetoric.

CNN’s piece, however, does include sources from both sides of the election, although the intention of the piece is clear: that Bolsonaro’s election is not a good thing.

Coverage of Trump rally in Texas varies

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

Unsurprisingly, following a somewhat-controversial Trump rally at the Toyota Center in Houston, news outlets varied drastically in the ways in which they covered the event.

CNN’s coverage focused mainly on Trump dubbing himself as a “nationalist,” in its article, “Donald Trump used a word he’s ‘not supposed to.’ Here’s why.” by Chris Cillizza. The piece solely focused on Trump’s use of such a label, why it was problematic, and the dangers it presents.

While CNN did have other coverage on their website regarding the rally, this piece was undoubtedly front and center.

The antithesis of CNN, Fox News, covered the event quite differently. Instead, they focused on Trump’s backing of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, for whom he previously has expressed vehement distaste.

Furthermore, the piece entitled “Trump, at Texas rally, backs Cruz, slams Democrats for ‘assault on the sovereignty’ of US,” by Nicole Darrah expanded upon Trump’s extensive aggression towards democrats and his belief that they’re responsible for the “caravans” of migrants at the U.S. border.

Lastly, the Washington Examiner‘s piece, “Trump, the Republican Beyonce, rocks Texas,” by Tiana Lowe may have had the least-biased coverage, regardless of the humorous title alluding to the fact Trump filled the same stadium Beyonce once did.

Lowe’s piece quickly and somewhat neutrally covered the main points of the rally without expansion upon any one component or point of view. She simply covered Trump’s statements of nationalism and his newfound support for Cruz.

No urgency found in climate news

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on Monday about the impact that will occur if global warming reaches an additional 1.5 degrees C.

The Summary for Policymakers emphasized the drastic, unprecedented change that will have to occur if we wish to avoid utter ‘climate catastrophe’ by 2030.

While most news outlets did well in the actual articles covering the report, problems arise in regard to the importance it was given in comparison to other stories of the day. An issue such as this impacts the entire world.

Climate change doesn’t discriminate based on political preference, race, or gender. It impacts everyone and therefore should be what every news outlet is discussing today.

Instead, many news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News focused their coverage on the Kavanaugh confirmation and, ironically, Hurricane Michael.

The way in which news outlets prioritize stories heavily plays into what their audience is and isn’t knowledgeable about. Therefore, putting articles about the IPCC’s pivotal report, puts consumers in a position where they’re less inclined to be informed about the stakes we’re up against as a planet.

News outlets’ intentions may simply be to attract as many viewers as possible. Subsequently, leading them to focus more on immediate issues in society such as the Kavanaugh confirmation.

Regardless of the motive, I still maintain that it is the responsibility of news media to deliver to Americans, and society at large, coverage of the most pressing issues. And I’m uncertain what could be more pressing than sustaining the thing that is the sole reason for our existence.

Covering Kanye West’s ‘SNL’ politics

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

News media bias was ever-present in the coverage of rapper Kanye West’s comments on “Saturday Night Live” this past weekend.

West embarked upon a length pro-Trump tirade after the show went off-air. His words were, per usual, caught and shared via social media.

He also expressed his opinions on the 13th Amendment first indicating he believes it should be repealed, and later on saying it needs to be amended.

 

In CNN’s coverage of the event by Lisa Respers France, headlined, “Kanye West stirs more outrage with 13th Amendment, slavery tweets,” the way in which the event is covered is undoubtedly influenced by the outlet’s reputation as a somewhat liberal news media source.

The headline alone makes the article feel as if the event is everyone versus, the villain of the story, West.

France then goes on to exclusively cover just the backlash West received from big stars including Chris Evans, Lana Del Rey, and Swizz Beatz.

On the other end of the spectrum, is Fox News’ article by Katherine Lam, “Chris Evans slams Kanye West’s call to ‘abolish’ the 13th Amendment.”

The headline for this piece is influential as well. It has the opposite effect of CNN’s, portraying Chris Evans, and later on others who criticized West, as the aggressors.

Another indication of Lam’s political leanings are the fact that she not only reports on West’s controversial statements but also includes comments he has made to defend himself.

Through their headlines alone, CNN and Fox News both clearly indicate their position on the comments and overall political opinions regarding President Trump.

‘WW’ coverage needs refocus

Posted on by

By: SARAH BRADDOCK

Following the launch of Weight Watchers’ rebranding efforts, including the new “WW” name, many news outlets focused their attention on the wrong issues at hand instead of addressing the core issues of diet-culture.

Initially, most of the articles covering the rebranding elaborate on the changes taking place within the company’s practices. This includes a new application, partnership with meditation app Headspace, and incentives for logging various health-related activities.

Then, the pieces go one of two ways. Exhibited in People’s article, “Weight Watchers Rebrands to WW and Refocuses on Health and Wellness” by Julie Mazziotta, many of the pieces fail to provide more than one side to the perception of the rebrand.

The article does well in explaining the new changes taking place, but the only opinion given in the piece is from CEO Mindy Grossman and major WW investor, Oprah Winfrey.

Only including opinions from sources who will undoubtedly speak in favor of the company creates a bias within the article’s content.

Another way the coverage of WW’s new look goes is portrayed in Independent’s, “Weight Watchers Rebrands as WW in Bid to Distance Itself From Dieting,” by Rachel Hosie.

Hosie also covers Grossman’s account on the rebranding of the company, but she elaborates on the backlash the company has received. She cites London-based nutritionist Laura Thomas also holds a Ph.D. in nutritional sciences at Texas A&M.

Thomas is notoriously anti-diet through her social media presence and nutrition practice. Including another opinion on the possibly dishonest intentions of Weight Watchers’ supposed well-intentioned rebranding adds credibility to the article.

Following Thomas’s feedback, however, the article goes on to elaborate on Oprah Winfrey’s role within the company.

This is where the majority of my issues arise with media coverage of this event. Many articles use Winfrey’s support and role in WW as a crutch.

Through covering the damage diet culture has on young women and the way WW promotes this, discussing the success Winfrey has had within the program devalues any good intentions the article, writer or publication may have had.

Media perpetuate political name-calling

Posted on by

By SARAH BRADDOCK

The political arena of news media is a ceaseless back and forth between both journalists and politicians on opposing sides of issues. During an interview on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” former Secretary of State John Kerry found himself the brunt of heavy criticism.

During the interview, Maher prompted discussion regarding Trump’s apparent resentment towards Kerry, and the reasoning behind it.

Kerry responded with criticisms regarding Trump’s use of social media and the ways in which he seemingly prioritizes it. Then, Kerry elaborated as the audience cheered him on.

“He really is the rare combination of an 8-year-old boy — I mean, he’s got the maturity of an 8-year-old boy with the insecurity of a teenage girl. It’s just who he is,” said Kerry.

In an East Bay Times article covering the event the author, Amy B. Wang, discussed the online responses Kerry received when he compared Trump to a teenage girl.

Wang briefly discussed those who supported the humorously intended comparison, but she mainly focuses on the backlash. She points out that many found the comment offensive due to the fact that many teenage girls aren’t insecure.

While Kerry’s comments were based in a stereotype that could be offensive to some, the “newsworthiness” of this situation seems unlikely. Media sources are plastered with incessant name-calling and through covering it, we perpetuate the cycle, and give power to those engaging in the act.

Not only is the newsworthiness of these reoccurring instances questionable, but the line between what makes one situation worth covering and another not is puzzling.

More or less any statement made by politicians, especially, will receive some sort of backlash or another online. So, where do we draw the line between offensive to the point of being newsworthy and then simply not worth our time as journalists?

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.

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.