Tag Archives: Political reporting

Covering the State of the Union address

Posted on by

By RYAN GRILLE

CNN issued a report on Monday morning regarding the fate of Donald Trump’s State of the Union address. The article, which was written by Devan Cole and Kevin Bohn, has several key features that I find interesting.

First of all, the topic is extremely relevant to current situations. In the aftermath of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, many people online have been wondering about Trump’s upcoming State of the Union address, especially after Nancy Pelosi advised him to give his speech in writing. This article will certainly gain the attention of many who have been following these recent events.

The story involves confirmation that Trump will not be giving the address on Tuesday through an aide of Nancy Pelosi. It is interesting that the name of the person who confirmed this information has not been disclosed. It is possible the person did not want their name to be made public and preferred to remain anonymous. This is also an example of a news network taking advantage of having an exclusive source.

I also applaud the reporters behind this article for not injecting their own personal opinions. One of the problems I have with many cable network reporters nowadays is that they tend to sensationalize the news and try to manipulate the audience into feeling a certain way. This article just tells the news like it is. It also clarifies Pelosi’s role regarding the State of the Union so that the reader has a stronger grasp of what is happening. Overall, this was a simple but great example of excellent reporting

Broward County struggles with recount

Posted on by

By JENNIFER HUDAK

Following the Nov. 6 midterm elections, Broward County found itself in the midst of a ballot crisis.

After the gubernatorial, U.S. Senate and Secretary of Agriculture races were deemed too close to call, counties across the State of Florida began its recount efforts.

The recount process, lengthy and somewhat complicated, raised many questions as Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes reportedly mixed bad ballots with good. In addition to the mixing of ballots, several provisional ballots were ruled invalid by the county’s canvassing board.

The turmoil in Broward county led to attacks from both parties involved.

Republican candidate for Senate Rick Scott sued to Broward County Election Department for the refusing to publish details regarding the tabulation of election ballots.

“The people of Florida deserve fairness and transparency, and the supervisors are failing to give it to us,” said Scott.

Democratic candidate for governor Andrew Gillum is pushing for Broward to count every vote received, including the provisional and mail-in ballots.

“I am not here to ask for votes. I am simply here to say that for the votes that have been cast they ought to be counted. Every last one of them. What a notion,” Gillum said at a rally in Fort Lauderdale.

The deadline for machine recounts concluded at 3 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 15. While Broward met the deadline with minutes to spare, the count was not marked valid. Shortly after, officials began a manual recount of the ballots. The deadline for manual recounts is at 12 p.m. on Nov. 18.

News media: Forgive, forget and repeat

Posted on by

By ADAM SPECTOR

Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned among the request of former host of “The Celebrity Apprentice”-turned president of the United States, Donald Trump.

Trump felt that Twitter was the most appropriate place to name the acting attorney general until a replacement is named and confirmed. The acting attorney general is Matthew Whitaker.

Sessions was an early supporter of Trump, as he publicly endorsed him during the presidential primaries. At the time, Sessions was a U.S. Senator from Alabama.

As we know, the Trump campaign has been under investigation since 2016 over suspicion of Russian collusion. When Sessions was asked about whether or not he was in contact with Russian officials he denied it, which later turned out to be false. Sessions recused himself from the investigation, which angered Trump.

Since then, Trump has complained about Sessions on what seems like an hourly basis.

“Sessions should have never recused himself and, if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News.

Even though this story is currently a big deal, I am all but certain that news sources will stop talking about it within one week.

No news source that I have ever seen has pointed out that Trump and his administration are not acting like innocent people.

Whenever Trump says or does anything controversial, every news source covers it then quits talking about it one week later.

In 2015, Trump essentially called Mexican people criminals, drug dealers, rapists and “assumed some were good people.” It made all headlines, then news organizations, especially CNN, began to cover his campaign on an hourly basis and would dissect every word he said. By doing this, they added a level substance to everything he said. In addition to this, CNN constantly speculated that there was “a method to his madness” and that everything he said and did was all a part of a brilliant scheme.

CNN and other cable news organizations never once brought up the idea that had zero government and or military experience and continued to dissect everything he would say and do, creating the illusion that Trump knew precisely what he was doing.

Despite the fact that Trump frequently lies, nobody seems to mind. Whenever anything good happens, such as the improving economy, Trump gets 100 percent credit. Whenever bad things happen, such as the increase in hate crimes and mailing of bombs to people critical of Trump, nobody ever seems to even partially blame him.

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.

Curbelo meets man who threatened him

Posted on by

By MATTHEW POWELL

U.S. Congressman Carlos Curbelo of Florida’s 26th district recently met with a constituent of his who threatened to kill him on Twitter. Homestead teenager Alejandro Verges-Castro was arrested by the FBI after tweeting a threat to the congressman on Oct. 24.

Instead of staying away from the teen who threatened him, Curbelo appeared with the teenager today in an attempt to forgive the young man.

Our country is dealing with an immense amount of violent political  speech from both sides of the aisle that is sometimes orchestrated through biased news media coverage. Instead of putting fire to the flame, Curbelo instead accepted the teenagers apology and used him as  an example that words have actual meaning, even on twitter.

These threats came around the same time that an Aventura man was sending bombs in the mail to top democratic leaders.

The Miami Herald covered the incident extremely well, focusing on the idea that there can be political discussion in this country while also being civil, something that seems to be lost among today’s population, young or old.

Although this is one small example of political violence with words impacting a young mans life, it is great to see a congressman express remorse and compassion while also trying to steer the political discussion to civil discourse, not threats.

Students get look at world of politics

Posted on by

By IBRAHIM GRAY

The Beacon Hill Project launched on Friday, Sept. 21, which plans to provide opportunities for students to get a glimpse into the real world of politics.

The project involves monthly trips to Boston where students will meet with legislators, government officials and advocacy groups, while also gaining important insights into the arena of policy-making.

This project is one of the star attractions for students in master’s programs at the School of Public Policy. The school’s mission has always been to prepare students for public service, but this year the school is trying to implement programs to make the degrees offered more interesting for students who desire a future in government.

Raija Vaisanen, director of research at the Commonwealth Corporation and a panelist for the first event, described the project with great appreciation.

“The small-group format allows students to ask questions and have robust conversations with panelists,” she said. “It also allows students the opportunity to see people in different roles and occupations throughout the public service realm. This can help them envision themselves being in these jobs one day.”

The project will be taking another trip on Oct. 19 to visit experts at UMass Boston and the Kennedy School at Harvard. The project aims to connect students who want to do public service with people who actually engage in policy-making. The School of Public Policy hopes to expand this project to more places with a larger set of students getting the exposure they need to create a future in public policy.

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.

Kavanaugh coverage impartial, eager

Posted on by

By DAVE DOWNEY

With the first round of voting expected Friday for the potential confirmation for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, news media coverage has been rather objective and very much anxious to see what will unfold on Capitol Hill.

In the meantime, Kavanaugh penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on Thursday criticizing what he described as “vicious” attacks against him while admitting he “might have been too emotional” during his hearing on Capitol Hill last week.

Of course, it didn’t take long for the news media to jump on this breaking story.

CNN’s headline read: “Kavanaugh writes op-ed arguing he is an ‘independent, impartial judge’ after emotional testimony”

While Fox News’s headline read: “Kavanaugh, in op-ed, decries ‘vicious’ attacks while saying he ‘might have been too emotional’ at hearing'”

To the naked eye, it seems both were written without much subjectivity to the subject matter, even though both are known for favoring one side of the scale over the other.

Once the U.S. Senate meets tomorrow in Washington, news outlets are sure to jump on the voting results as soon as humanly possible.

Ford’s credibility called into question

Posted on by

By NICOLE LEMBO

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the first woman to come forward and accuse Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, has been believed by many to be a credible witness during her hearing in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

Now, her credibility is being called into question, as a letter from her former boyfriend, Brian Merrick, was released to the public this week.

The letter, written under penalty of perjury, contradicts a number of Ford’s claims from the hearing. If such claims are true, Ford may face the possibility of being tried for lying under oath.

The former boyfriend claims that he witnessed Ford assist a “life-long best friend,” Monica McLean, prepare for a polygraph test. Merrick stated, “I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.”

This is contrary to Ford’s sworn statement that she had never assisted in a polygraph test. McLean denied these claims in a recently released statement.  

Other claims by Merrick include that Ford never admitted to having a fear of flying and that upon the ending of their relationship, due to her infidelity, she stole his credit card information and charged “about $600 worth of merchandise” to his account. In her sworn testimony, Ford claimed to have a fear of flying.

The letter has been largely overshadowed in the mainstream media by President Donald Trump’s disbelief of Ford while at a campaign rally in Southaven, Miss. He stated, “How did you get home? I don’t remember. How’d you get there? I don’t remember. Where’s the place? I don’t remember …. But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember.”

The vote on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh is scheduled this weekend in front of the U.S. Senate.

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.

Viewers decide about hearing news

Posted on by

By DAVE DOWNEY

After the dust has settled from Thursday’s bouts of interrogation and questioning by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, how did certain parts of the news media provide coverage to the American people?

Text box captions at the bottom of the TV screen, also called lower-thirds, not only tell viewers what the news is, they say what the network wants them to make of it. In the event of a big news event, they are a way for viewers to peer into the newsroom and see how those different networks interpret what is being said.

During Ford’s testimony, CNN and MSNBC frequently returned to a statement she made saying she was “100%” certain that Kavanaugh was the one who assaulted her.

Fox News mentioned it only once. Those networks also referred several times to Ford’s sentiment that it was her “civic duty” to testify.

During Kavanaugh’s testimony, Fox’s lower thirds changed much more frequently, including several quotes from his emotional opening statement.

CNN and MSNBC frequently referenced a few notable quotes, including “I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone” and “I am innocent of this charge.”

During a 30-minute break around lunchtime, CNN and MSNBC rotated lower-thirds with quotes from Ford’s testimony. Fox News mentioned Ford’s “100 percent” statement but, for most of its coverage during the break, said the hearing had paused.

Although it seems continuity between networks is still a lot to ask for this day in age, viewers have to make a choice themselves as to how to take in what is being conveyed through the screen.

Reporting about Kavanaugh needs work

Posted on by

By MATTHEW POWELL

I have just finished watching the coverage surrounding the Kavanaugh testimony today and the TV coverage has been incredibly lazy. From all the many platforms that people have access to watch the hearings and the commentary from talking heads, the question begs to be asked: what has happened to common decency and due process?

Regardless of whether you believe Kavanaugh or not, the trial by public opinion that has been put on by national news media with little to no facts and reporting based off “tips.” These stories are reckless, dangerous and threatening to someone’s family. They serve little to no purpose other than to portray a narrative that may or not be true.

As well as their inability to cover news correctly and fairly, main stream news media have also failed to wildly report that Sen. Diane Feinstein held on to this information throughout the entire nomination process, even through her one-on-one meeting with Kavanaugh, and never brought it up. Instead, she waited until the 11th hour to come out with this information, right before his Senate vote.

This entire process has been a national embarrassment from start to end and the national news media should be just as ashamed as the senate.

Kavanaugh hearing sparks news frenzy

Posted on by

By NICOLE LEMBO

On Thursday, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the first woman to accuse him of sexual assault, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, testified in front of the U.S. enate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C. The hearing lasted almost nine hours.

During her time on the stand, Ford was questioned on the details surrounding her alleged encounter with Kavanaugh when they were both teenagers. Ford claims Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her at a party in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh denied these allegations and remains firm that he is innocent.

As one could imagine, the day’s events sparked a news media frenzy. Major news outlets were covering the hearing with minute-by-minute updates, political pundits took to Twitter to voice their opinions and millions of Americans tuned in to watch the story unfold.

As to be expected, there was major division among the more conservative and liberal news networks, such as Fox, CNN and MSNBC regarding who is truly innocent.

However, in a CNN article titled, “How Fox News is covering Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony” instead of defending Kavanaugh as many may expect of Fox, it discusses how the Fox News commentators watching the hearing believed Ford was actually a credible witness.

Also according to CNN, during Ford’s testimony, Judge Andrew Napolitano stated, “The president cannot be happy with this.” Yet, after the hearing, President Donald Trump, who had been watching all day, tweeted, “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!”

Partisanship rules during confirmation

Posted on by

By NICOLAS IPARRAGUIRRE

This past week, the already contentious U.S. Supreme Court confirmation process of nominee Brett Kavanaugh has become embroiled in controversy since allegations of sexual misconduct were revealed. The accuser, Dr. Christine Ford, wrote to her local representative and senator in July regarding an incident that occurred when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.

Since the allegations have been made public, much of the news media on both sides have failed to examine all of the facts in the case in favor of repeating talking points from politicians on each side.

For conservatives, many commentators have stuck to the talking point that until there is more information, nothing can be done. While usually delivering a message that does err on the side of caution, news media commentators on the right have failed to acknowledge that since it is unlikely facts can be discovered within the next week.

Waiting for more information would lead to a vote on Kavanaugh before the credibility of the allegations can be confirmed. In a tweet after the allegations surfaced, Ben Shapiro, founder of the Daily Wire tweeted, “The point here isn’t that we should DISBELIEVE all women. We should give women the presumption of truth — but then we should ask for supporting details and evidence if we actually give a good damn about due process or truth itself.”

This carefully crafted message ignores the issue that additional information will be difficult to ascertain, and that this line of thinking will lead to Kavanaugh’s confirmation prior to the discovery of any corroborating evidence for the allegations.

For the left, many news media commentators have repeated the Democratic talking points that ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley should halt the nomination process and institute an FBI investigation. The only issue with this idea is that the Senate does not actually have the authority to order an investigation from the FBI, as it exists as an executive branch agency.

One member of the news media who has been an example of simply reporting the facts has been Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow, famous for his investigative work exposing allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Farrow’s reporting on the subject featured a detailed account of the allegations against Kavanaugh, along with reporting that the allegations have been known to senator Dianne Feinstein since July.

With information difficult to come across for extremely serious allegations regarding a Supreme Court nominee, Farrow has simply informed the public without inserting his own opinion and allowing the facts to inform the public as to where the situation stands.

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?

Scarborough calls Trump harmful

Posted on by

By NICOLE LEMBO

Sept. 11 is regarded as a national day of mourning, where Americans come together in solidarity to honor the nearly 3,000 lives lost in the tragic terrorist attacks. It is a day to put political differences aside and remember the fallen.

Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” did not seem to get that memo.

Scarborough, a former Trump supporter turned critic, took to Twitter on the 17th anniversary of 9/11 to promote his newest opinion piece in The Washington Post, entitled, “Trump is harming the dream of America more than any foreign adversary ever could.”

In the column, Scarborough recalls that America was once a powerhouse prior to Sept. 11, 2001. He then proceeds to criticize the presidency of George W. Bush before ultimately scrutinizing President Donald Trump and his supporters.

He concluded the piece by saying, “The question for voters this fall is whether their country will move beyond this troubled chapter in history or whether they will continue supporting a politician who has done more damage to the dream of America than any foreign adversary ever could.”

Regardless of one’s feelings regarding President Trump, comparing his presidency to the deadliest attack on American soil is both inappropriate and insensitive. Scarborough continues to be the recipient of backlash from various political pundits for his remarks. In an interview with Fox News, conservative strategist, Chris Barron, said that “Shamelessly exploiting the death of 3,000 Americans in an attempt to do political damage to President Trump is a new low, even for Joe Scarborough.”

After receiving criticism from public figures such as Sean Hannity and Donald Trump Jr. Scarborough took to Twitter once-again to give what seemed like a weak apology for the article. “…On September 11th, I’ll read the column again and think about whether I could have said the same thing in a way less offensive to Trump supporters on September 11th.”

Personally, I am surprised that Scarborough’s piece did not generate more news media attention. While it was definitely acknowledged by the more conservative networks such as Fox, it did not seem to get mentioned as much or at all on the more liberal media outlets.

Talk about 2020 race builds

Posted on by

By ADAM SPECTOR

The Democratic governor of Montana, Steve Bullock, has recently been on several trips to Iowa. This has fueled speculation that the red-state governor may run for president.

Ever since the 2016 election, there has been talk about 2020 on a daily basis. Some argue that the Democratic party should become the socialist party of America, while others argue that the Democratic party should take a more centrist and pragmatic approach to matters.

Other than former Vice President Joe Biden, most of the names being talked about for 2020 are notably more liberal than former President Barack Obama and are from liberal states such as California, New York and New Jersey.

Unlike many of the other talked about potential 2020 candidates, Bullock is from a conservative state. He was re-elected governor in a state where Donald Trump won by 20 percent during the general election in 2016.

Bullock says Democrats will lose the 2018 midterms if they make it “just a referendum against Donald Trump. It’s not enough from my perspective just to be against him.”

In addition to being from a conservative state, Bullock’s policies and goals are considerably different from what would be expected from a Democrat. Bullock has opposed having a sales tax in Montana and has on a number of occasions made budget cuts.

Unlike many blue-state Democrats, Bullock also had to appeal to Republicans in order to be elected and believes there is more to governing successfully than taking whatever is the most progressive position.

“Somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of my voters also voted for Donald Trump. But how I win and how I govern, I don’t think there’s any secret recipe,” Bullock said in an interview on ABC News.

A number of news outlets have mentioned Bullock as a possible 2020 candidate but have cited his lack of name recognition as a potential challenge for him.

Most mainstream news sources treat certain politicians like heroes and others like they are pure evil and they seem to want certain candidates to run in 2020. For an example, CNN has mentioned former bartender and current Democratic nominee for New York’s 14th district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as “the new face of the democratic party,” even though she is yet to win a House seat.

Another example of a politician who is portrayed in a positive light is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. Time magazine wrote a cover story about Paul, calling him “the Most Interesting Man in Politics.” On the other hand, politicians such as Hillary Clinton are portrayed by sources such as CNN as a corrupt pathological liar despite having almost the same average of true and false statements as Obama according to Politifact.

Many news outlets are quoting advice on how to win non-liberal states from people with ultra-liberal viewpoints who are from liberal states such as Bernie Sanders, a socialist Senator from Vermont. Many news sources and Democrats that want to win elections are ignoring the opinions and ideas of Democrats who actually won elections in conservative states such as Bullock.

Shalala wins Democratic nomination

Posted on by

By JENNIFER HUDAK

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

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

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

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

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

The final election will take place on Nov. 6.

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.