Tag Archives: Political reporting

Sen. Collins sinks Obamacare repeal

Posted on by

By ANDRES ARENAS GRAYEB

This Monday, Republican U.S. Senator Susan Collins announced her opposition to the latest GOP bill meant to replace the Affordable Care Act.

The Graham-Cassidy bill, named after sponsoring senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, had already lost the support of Republican senators John McCain and Rand Paul, with Ted Cruz indicating through aides that he was also favoring the opposition.

With the 52-48 Senate majority the Republican Party currently holds, Republicans can only lose two votes if they desire to bring a bill to life, with the help Vice President Mike Pence’s tie-breaking vote. Collins, by being the third Republican senator to officially oppose it, effectively doomed the bill, along with any hopes the GOP has for removing Obamacare for the time being.

Both USA Today and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch adequately described the basic implications of the Graham-Cassidy bill, in addition to its intended and possible impact on the current Affordable Care Act. More notably, however, they were both able to capture voices from all sides of the discussion, from Sen. Collins herself to Bill Cassidy, the bill’s most ardent supporter, in addition to notable Democrats on the issue such as Sen. Ron Wyden.

Both sources also did not forget to mention neutral parties, such as the Congressional Budget Office, whose limited analysis of the bill helped persuade Collins to take a side. Both stories are well rounded overall in the sense that readers get a clear idea of both the facts and emotions of the case from various angles, leaving the political and economic situation up for interpretation and further analysis in the future.

Fox News hires commentator Lahren

Posted on by

By EVAN ALDO

Fox News Channel has hired conservative commentator Tomi Lahren, who is known for her previous positions at The Blaze and One America News Network.  She is also known for her work on a political action committee supporting President Donald Trump.

Tomi Lahren (Photo courtesy of #Tommy Lehren@Twitter).

The South Dakota native will make her debut as a contributor on tonight’s edition of “Hannity” at 10 p.m. ET/PT.

According to Fox News, Lahren will have a “signature role” on a digital product currently under development and will also be a commentator on the network’s opinion programming.

She will most often appear on Sean Hannity’s show, where she originally made her first appearance on Fox.  On his show, she has been most known for criticizing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the “mainstream media.”

“How about when the mainstream media stops covering Russia day in and day out, maybe we can drop the Hillary email scandal,” said Lahren on Twitter yesterday.

The 25-year-old Donald Trump supporter, is a University of Nevada at Las Vegas graduate who built a following on social media with over four million Facebook followers.  She creates her own videos with commentary on politics and culture. Lahren has made national news for her strong criticisms of Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protests, as well as comparing Black Lives Matter to the KKK.

The conservative commentator was fired from The Blaze earlier this year after saying that she was pro-choice in an appearance on “The View.”

“I have moderate, conservative and libertarian views. I’m human.  I will never apologize, to anyone, for being an independent thinker,” said Lahren on Twitter shortly after she was fired.

Acosta goes too far with interview

Posted on by

By DANNY LAROSE

When CNN’s Jim Acosta grilled White House advisor Stephen Miller on immigration policy in the Trump Administration, he was not championing the tired, poor, huddled masses that the Statue of Liberty invites. He was championing his own cause, one that crosses the line of journalistic integrity into political partisanship.

Much has been said in regard to partisanship in the news media and it is largely true for both sides of the political spectrum. Bias in the news consumers receive and digest is the new norm. No clearer has this been apparent than when a few weeks ago, CNN’s senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta tore off his reporter’s cap and donned the mantle of Republican opposition.

Acosta, rather than ask a question that would subsequently inform his viewers, recited to Stephen Miller the poem added to the Statue of Liberty in New York, saying “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.” He then chose to press Miller about the legitimacy and true nature of the Trump Administration’s new green card policy, saying it was possibly race-influenced.

Acosta started an argument with Miller. He did not ask a necessary, informative question, he did not ask something that would open up the floor for further voices. Acosta sought to debate Miller as a political opponent would, failing to understand (or perhaps disregarding entirely) that his job as a reporter is to report news, not instigate ideological arguments on the press room floor.

The ordeal was a disservice to Acosta’s colleagues in the White House press room as it was unfair and disrespectful to the qualified reporters simply trying to do their jobs, but it was especially a disservice to Acosta’s viewers, who have a right to receive news that is fair and not manipulated. Acosta, however, has begun to disregard his duty as a journalist to provide the public with legitimate stories that they can judge for themselves. He failed because that day he became the news, when he was instead supposed to report it.

America divided over Comey hearing

Posted on by

By GABRIELA SANTOS

The long-awaited Senate Intelligence Committee hearing has come and gone but the impact it has left on the country will sure to stay. In a way not seen since Watergate, the event drew in people from all walks of life to stop and watch ex-FBI Director James Comey’s testimony on Thursday.

Americans all over the country filled bars, clubs, airports and restaurants just to sit and listen to the testimonial.

“There were recordings, there were memos made, a paper trail created I think it tells a lot about the trust that not only the American public should have in Trump but his own administration,” Alicia Gosford, who watched and told local New Haven, Conn., news station WTNH.

The news media are clearly divided over what Comey’s testimonials could mean for Trump, and the American people are no different.

“I think it was definitely good for President Trump, with the only exception being Comey’s points about Trump ‘lying’ about his character,” Chris Jones, a marketing executive from Redding, Conn., told Fox News.

It truly boils down to where you stand on the political spectrum. The more liberal stations like CNN, MSNBC, etc., seem to draw up a general consensus that the hearing will have a negative impact for Trump in the coming weeks. News outlets like FOX, on the other hand, seem optimistic that these hearings will amount to nothing.

That being said, when polled Americans overwhelmingly believe that Comey’s firing had to do with the fact that the FBI investigation would “hurt” Trump. According to a FOX News poll, 79 percent of people agree with this while 29 percent believe that he was “hurting” the FBI.

The news media bias in this case is strong, but I believe only time will tell what the facts really are, that is, if the ever come out.

Trump tweets change news coverage

Posted on by

By AMANDA PRATS

“Mr. Trump said on Twitter,” has become a common way to source quotations from the President of the United States. In an article regarding the missile strike ordered by the president on Syria Thursday night, The New York Times referenced a tweet from President Trump from 2013.

The tweet read, “President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your ‘powder’ for another (and more important) day!”

The president’s extensive use of Twitter has thrown political pundits and news media professionals for a loop. His tweets have been regarded differently by different audiences.

Some insist his tweets are largely hyperbolic in nature; others assert that when the president tweets, that is an official statement and should be regarded as such.
Regardless of how the tweets are interpreted, they’re out there. It seems for nearly every comment Trump makes, one of his tweets surfaces. Oftentimes, they’re contradictory, uninformed, and inflammatory.

Since taking office, Trump’s tweets have been even more deeply analyzed. Many expressed concern when the timeline of Trump’s tweets on April 3 made clear that the president spent close to three hours watching Fox News that morning.

Beginning at 3:15 a.m., Trump tweeted, “Such amazing reporting on unmasking and the crooked scheme against us by @foxandfriends. ‘Spied on before nomination.’ The real story.”

He posted three more tweets, each of which correlated to coverage on Fox News at the time. This continued until 5:51 a.m.

“@FoxNews from multiple sources: “There was electronic surveillance of Trump, and people close to Trump. This is unprecedented.” @FBI,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter.

Times checks Trump on false claims

Posted on by

By AMANDA PRATS

The New York Times released a fact check in response to President Trump’s recent interview with Time magazine.

During the interview, Trump repeatedly falsely cited The Times to support his unsubstantiated accusations of wiretapping of his campaign office.

The statements involved his continued assertion that President Obama wiretapped the phones in Trump Tower during the election, a claim he has repeatedly made despite a complete lack of evidence and support from any intelligence officials.

In his interview, Trump said that The Times altered a headline on an article that originally read as, “Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides.” He went on to say that the headline was changed to drop the word “wiretap.”

In response to the statements, The Times’ fact check clarified that this was false, and that the original articles which appeared both online and in print were released with different headlines, neither of which were changed at any point. The Times included in its fact check screenshots of the cached website showing the article and headline, unchanged, at various times as the story developed.

The fact check refuted Trump’s usage of The Times’ headline to back his claims. “Neither the print nor online version of the article supports Mr. Trump’s accusation that Mr. Obama ordered surveillance on him,” The New York Times wrote, arguing that Trump’s statements were misleading.

ACC in Brooklyn a smart choice

Posted on by

By JOSH WHITE

The Atlantic Coast Conference is in the midst of holding its men’s basketball tournament at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn this week. The move might seem strange for the Tobacco Road-centric league, but the league has good reason.

Besides a return to the ACC’s roots, the conference moved the event out of North Carolina as a result of House Bill 2.

HB2 is best-known for requiring visitors to schools and other government facilities to use the bathroom of the gender that appears on their birth certificates.

The ACC felt it was best to move the event out of North Carolina because of the complications politically.

I agree with the move and so do many of the head coaches and players.

First off, moving the event to a city/state that allows individuals to use the bathroom of their gender identity is right in my opinion. No one should be restricted.

Now basketball-wise, the move to a major city like Brooklyn/New York City that has so much going on builds excitement in the news media. Fans, not just of the ACC, but fans of college basketball are invested in the tournament because of its location. Located in the heart of nation’s news media capital now builds attention for the best conference in college basketball.

Lastly, many of the head coaches and players love it because it is in the mecca of basketball.

Miami Hurricanes Head Coach Jim Larrañaga praised the conference and thinks it should always be in Brooklyn because he feels that basketball was born in New York.

Syracuse’s veteran Head Coach Jim Boeheim agrees that the tournament should be held in New York or another major city because there is zero reason to hold it in Greensboro.

No matter which way you slice it up —politically, athletically, or news-media wise — the move out of Greensboro to a major city outside the state of North Carolina is a positive one.

Media compare Russia issue, Watergate

Posted on by

By AMANDA PRATS

Unable to resist the allure of a catchy nickname, the writer of a CNN opinion piece wasted no time in dubbing the latest White House controversy “Russiagate.”

Much of the news media have been quick to draw comparisons between the investigation regarding the apparent communications between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and the Watergate scandal.

The opinion piece run by CNN argued that it’s time for “a Watergate-style select committee” to investigate the issue. Vox published an interview with President George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer, who told Vox that, “the facts now in this investigation are much worse than the facts in the early stages of Watergate.” The Fix, a politics blog for The Washington Post, wrote that “Nixon’s former attorney sees ‘echoes of Watergate’ in President Trump’s first month.”

In The Fix’s article, the writer shares that attorney John Dean, who sat before the Senate Watergate Committee, feels an air of familiarity between the current administration and Watergate. In the article, reporter Cleve R. Wootson Jr. writes, “Dean said in an interview aired Friday that President Trump’s first month in office — with its anti-media tirades and efforts to use intelligence agencies for political purposes — has “echoes of Watergate.”

Following the chronology of Nixon’s presidency, The Washington Post piece ended by acknowledging the concern of Trump’s presidency mirroring the ending of Nixon’s, questioning the possibility of impeachment.

The suggestion raised by the question itself could be seen as further evidence of the news media’s rocky relationship with the president; some may argue it was just evidence of wishful thinking.

Trump notes Women’s History Month

Posted on by

By COURTNEY ADELMAN

President Trump declared March to be recognized as Women’s History Month on Wednesday, following the tradition of the National Women’s March.

This is very interesting for Trump to talks about as some of the news media outlets have viewed trump as a “women hater or sexist.”

The newly claimed month roots from International Women’s Day, which is celebrated on March 8. This day has been marked by the United Nations since 1975.

According to the National Women’s History Project, the success of local projects back in the day during Women’s History Week bubbled up back to the Carter White House.

Jimmy Carter issued the very first presidential statement on Women’s History Week in 1980.

Originally this was for the Equal Rights Amendment, which was passed by Congress and became the 27th Amendment.

Throughout history women have struggled with equality and especially with things like equal pay.

Each president has done something different for National Women’s History Month.

Women have come a long way, but most recently have felt attacked by the new president.

Trumps remarks throughout his campaigning have been degrading to women and many women felt victimized by him.

Although, not all women felt that way it is very important to recognize what Trump is saying, if anything about women.

It is also important to recognize what Trump has said or is doing in the media, so that everyone knows.

So far he hasn’t done much, but this is one progressive step in equality for women.

CNN, Fox offer different views of speech

Posted on by

By ERYKAH DAVENPORT

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump indicated his interest in seeking to help pass an immigration reform bill.

In CNN’s coverage, this new source referred to it as his “great immigration fake-out” in an article titled “Trump cruel bait-and-switch on immigration.” CNN also reported that another one of Trump’s interests were to propose and potentially pass a bill that could grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants. This would allow for those individuals to gain the opportunity to become legal citizens of the country of their desire.

CNN’s outlook on Trump’s address was seemingly more focused on the shortcomings of anything that was discussed. While emphasizing such limitations, this was said: “While Trump stopped short of endorsing a path to citizenship for the undocumented, this was nonetheless a startling break with his past hard-line stance on immigration.

A senior administration official also told journalists that Trump would be open to legalization for undocumented immigrants who have not committed serious or violent crimes.” This statement portrays the idea that Trump is only willing to consider being open to legalization if the person is accompanied by a clean slate.

Fox News’ approach on his address was more pro-Trump. Some of the political language used in the article titled “Mr. Trump’s very expensive address” delineates Trump as a more conservative president.

The article stated that “compared to his campaign filled with “Trumpisms,” this address was the more positive and optimistic, telling of his new nationalism. He added grace notes about minority groups, shied away from taunting or tormenting his rivals, and summoned his countrymen to the project of restoring, what else, American greatness.

Fox News tends to support the brighter side of things and hardly ever, if ever, mentions the downfalls associated with President Trump’s address.

FBI refuses to discredit news media

Posted on by

By AMANDA PRATS

In an exclusive story, CNN reported that the White House asked the FBI to deny news media reports regarding communications between Donald Trump’s advisers and Russia.

The stories discussed were reports by The New York Times and CNN that there was “constant communication between high-level advisers to then-candidate Trump, Russian officials and other Russians known to U.S. intelligence” before the election.

According to the White House official who informed the story, the request from White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus came after the FBI told the White House that it did not believe The New York Times’ reporting was accurate. The FBI has not commented publicly on the story and has not backed this position.

These requests were reportedly made despite restrictions that are meant to limit communication between the White House and the FBI regarding pending investigations, according to CNN’s Evan Perez, one of the journalists who investigated the story. Perez explained on “Erin Burnett OutFront” that these restrictions date back to 2007 and 2009, when the Justice Department issued memos limiting such communications.

In what has become a common practice of Trump’s administration, the White House issued a denial of the reports. Priebus called the New York Times story “complete garbage,” going on “Fox News Sunday” to say, “That story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated and it was wrong. And there’s nothing to it.”

Despite these efforts to discredit the reporting of The New York Times and CNN, the investigation into the possible communications between Russian officials and the Trump campaign is ongoing.

Fox News’ Smith criticizes Trump

Posted on by

By AMANDA PRATS

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith surprised many with a biting criticism of President Donald Trump on his show Thursday. Smith’s comments were in response to the president’s continued criticism of the news media, most recently during his Thursday press conference, which Smith described as “absolutely crazy.”

During the press conference, President Trump berated CNN’s Jim Acosta, averting his question and going on an extensive, dizzying rant about the news media.

Smith was critical of the president’s response to the question, defending Acosta and the news media as a whole.

“We’re not fools for asking the questions and we demand to know the answer to this question. You owe this to the American people,” Smith said on his show, pressing the president to take reporters’ questions seriously.

“We have a right to know. You call us fake news and put us down like children for asking these questions on behalf of the American people,” Smith said, referring to the president’s habit of referring to widely regarded organizations as “fake news.”

Smith’s response is only the latest in the saga of conflict between the president and the news media. Throughout his campaign, President Trump has repeatedly alleged that a plethora of news outlets are dishonest, ineffective or failing. The only program spared from the criticism seems to be the morning show “Fox & Friends,” for which the president has previously expressed his praise, and which he specifically mentioned during the press conference for being “very honorable people.”

Despite the president’s many attempts to discredit CNN, the news organization has not suffered, according to CNN President Jeff Zucker. In a state-of-the-company luncheon on Thursday, Zucker and other top executives from CNN and Turner announced that ratings are high, no advertisers have pulled out, and there has been no harm to the CNN brand.

Immigrants’ day sends message

Posted on by

By VERONICA SPAGNA

America’s new political situation seems to focus on segregating immigrants from their families and their homes but, within this alarming situation, something positive is being created. The unification of immigrants and non-immigrants to stand and fight together for their rights, bringing to the surface the humanity and acceptance that there is and that should be encouraged.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is a boycott that occurred on Thursday, encouraged by activists to all Immigrants around the nation to protest and highlight the importance and contribution of their presence in the United States.

This boycott encouraged the protesters to not attend work, not send children to school, not shop online or in stores, not to eat at restaurants, not to buy gas and not to attend class.

President Donald Trump has created bad relations with numerous countries, such as Mexico and Syria, by making them outsiders and wanting to kick their citizens out of America. Trump has vowed to deprive sanctuary cities of federal funding, increase the deportation of legal and illegal immigrants, and he has blamed the high unemployment rate on them.

In response to these recent events involving Donald Trump’s immigration policies, immigrants all around the nation went on strike to send a message to the president.

On the poster advertising the boycott, it said: “To the president: without us and our contribution this country is paralyzed.”

Awareness of this protest mainly happened through social media and posters, in addition to immigrant rights groups reaching out personally. This protest was meant to involve all undocumented, residents, citizens, immigrants from all over the world, but ended up getting more support.

All around the United States, business and restaurants were closed and thousands of students did not attend school. Some of the most visibly affected areas were in San Francisco and Washington, D.C, where popular chefs closed their restaurants in support for the protest.

Restaurants were the most impacted by the strike. Some restaurants canceled their long-standing reservations and served limited menus, donating earnings to the American Civil Liberties Union. The collaboration of not just immigrants alone, but even citizens, emphasizes the acceptance and unity that the United States is known to have by embracing its diversity.

There were restaurants that posted banners outside their establishments to spread the message. Such as Nickel’s Diner in Los Angeles, that put up a sign saying “We are all immigrants.”

Some immigrant communities discouraged the participation in this protest because it was risky and did not want to put immigrants in a more difficult situation. Many immigrants stated that they really wish they could participate in this boycott but could not risk losing their jobs. Nevertheless, they fully supported the protest.

Organizers of this protest warned the participators that there was a possibility of risk when getting involved in this boycott, but that they needed to be ready to take that risk. If you have a life somewhere, a life that includes your friends, your family, your education, your job and your home; the idea that one day you may have nothing is terrifying.

Understandably, you have to fight to not lose everything you have. To me, it makes sense that many immigrants are willing to take this risk.

The protest “A Day Without Immigrants” is a way of sending a direct message indirectly, by highlighting the role of immigrants in the life of Americans by not having them there.

Having many immigrants stay home for a day, impacts everyone’s everyday life in different ways. It is unfair that entire communities are criminalized, there are bad and good people everywhere.  It is good to see people come together and fight for their dignity and their lives.

Trump doesn’t comment on Quebec

Posted on by

By VERONICA SPAGNA

Donald Trump’s ethics are continuously questioned as he seems to easily get distracted from his duties as president and focus more on his family name and business, then on the real issues that keep arising worldwide.

Last Sunday, six people were killed and eight others were wounded in a shooting in a mosque in the city of Quebec. Trump has not said anything about this tragedy, but seems to be willing to share his opinions of his daughter’s clothing line.

The Quebec shooting, which occurred in a mosque, a Muslim place of worship, was an unexpected event as mass shootings, unlike in the United States, are fairly uncommon in Canada. The attack occurred at the Islamic Cultural Center of Quebec, in a country which became known as a safe place for refugees running from warfare and terrorism in countries of Muslim majority. The shooter, although native Canadian seemed to be a Trump supporter. This makes it a very delicate topic, especially after Donald’s Trump travel ban ruling.

As people waited on the opinion of the president, he said nothing about this misfortune and didn’t even share his compassion. Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s senior advisor justified the silence of Donald Trump by saying that he doesn’t tweet about everything. But by now we all seem to be too familiar with Donald Trump’s tweets, and so is Seth Meyers, the host on Late night, who called Trump out for his silence.

“Oh, he doesn’t tweet about everything?” Meyers said on “Late Night,” “It sure feels like he does!” Seth Meyers scrolled through Donald Trump’s tweets and pointed his tweet attacking Nordstrom, right after his intelligence briefing.

Nordstrom is an American chain of luxury department stores which announced they were no longer going to carry Ivanka Trump’s clothing line. Donald Trump tweeted “Ivanka has been treated so unfairly.” Many journalists strongly acknowledge Donald Trump’s lack of priorities and ethical behavior. The New York times brought up how Trump breaks Tradition by “singling out companies for criticism like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, automakers and news organizations.”

Donald Trump keeps constant attention on his family business, he gets overprotective when it comes to the family name, but when it comes to real issues he seems to lack the ability to make statements to show acceptance and give the nation a state of tranquility.

Donald Trump and his administration keep showing how business oriented they are instead of focusing on political issues. This only builds up continuous criticism instead and lack of trust in everything they say.  For example, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump and White house official promoted Ivanka Trump’s clothing line in a television interview and is continuing to receive criticism on ethical violations.

“Go buy Ivanka’s stuff,” Conway said “Ivanka Trump has a wonderful line, I own some of it. I fully, I’m gonna just going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today everybody. You can find it online.” This unacceptable comment proves the lack of orientation of Trumps administration on topics that actually matter through the use of unfair business practices. This is a Potential violation of Federal ethics law that bars the use of public office for public gain.

As we still wait on his opinion on the shooting in Quebec, silence can be stronger than words, suggesting that Donald Trump does not have an interest in commenting about the shooting because he doesn’t care.

The focus in the White House needs to be prioritized and stabilized on important issues, as the distraction on personal matters gets more attention than it should. Clear opinions and solutions need to be shared more, as this will give everyone more intellectual topics to read and talk about, instead of the constant dramatic and ridiculous affairs.

Journalists confront Trump’s claims

Posted on by

By AMANDA PRATS

In response to the White House’s list of 78 terror attacks that President Trump said were unreported by the news media, journalists have taken a direct approach in shutting down Trump’s claims.

The list included events that were reported nearly ad nauseam, including even the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and the November 2015 Paris attacks. These events and many of the others listed dominated news coverage for weeks, filling hours of air time and countless articles in print and online.

The list seems to have been primarily released in an attempt to support Trump’s repeated assertion that the media is dishonest and ineffective; the focus on terrorist attacks that were apparently influenced by radical Islam seems to be an effort to validate Trump’s recent policies regarding Muslim-majority countries.

In response to the list, journalists from news organizations across the nation and abroad have chimed in. CNN’s Anderson Cooper clarified on air that many of the attacks mentioned in the list he personally reported on, playing clips of him reporting from San Bernadino, Orlando and Paris, among many more.

On screen, the lower third read “WH releases list of undercovered attacks,” and in parenthesis, “(We covered many).” The New York Times published the list from the White House along with links to its own articles on nearly each attack.

Business Insider Australia reported on the five Australian incidents mentioned on the list, one of which was the fatal stabbing of two Australian backpackers. The incident was never determined by Australian police to be related to terrorism.

The family of one of the deceased reacted to the list with an open letter to Trump on Facebook, in which she shared that she began blogging to dispel what she called the myth that Islamic fundamentalism was the driving factor behind her daughter’s death.

The victim’s mother ended the post by denouncing Trump’s actions and framing of the attacks, writing “This vilification of whole nation states and their people based on religion is a terrifying reminder of the horror that can ensue when we allow ourselves to be led by ignorant people into darkness and hatred.”

The dilemma with ‘alternative facts’

Posted on by

By AMANDA PRATS

Anyone who considers themselves a fan of 1990s television knows it: The truth is out there. In 2017, however, the truth may be harder to find than it was for the “X-Files”’ Fox Mulder and Dana Scully.

For the past 100 years, since President Woodrow Wilson held the first one in March of 1913, the presidential press conference has been at the very least, credible. If the White House press secretary refrained from saying much, the little they did say was of significant news value to the journalists in attendance.

In one of the first press briefings of the Trump administration, new White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer accused the news media of misinformation while distributing misinformation himself. After the briefing, Kellyanne Conaway, one of Trump’s senior advisors, described Spicer’s blatant lies by using a phrase that has become infamous in the days since: “alternative facts.”

For members of the news media covering the Trump administration going forward, reporting on a White House that disseminates these falsehoods poses multiple major issues.

Since the beginning of his campaign, Trump has fueled the narrative that the news media has an inherent bias against him. If the news media chooses to continue to report on his administration’s lies as they are, he will continue to use it as evidence that journalists are against him. By doing their jobs, journalists will unfortunately encourage his narrative and as it is, much of the public already considers the news media to be biased against the president.

The government collects and reports an incredible amount of data, ranging from mundane to critical. While journalists have had to verify and check government data before, for the most part, journalists have never been in a position where questioning and vetting every piece of information from the government was necessary. However, when the line between fact and “alternative fact” becomes blurred, news organizations may have to rely on their own resources more heavily than the government agencies that they relied on in the past.

As the “X-Files” told us, the truth is out there. Finding the truth while reporting on an administration that completely disregards it, however, may pose a greater challenge than expected.

Protesting can’t become the norm

Posted on by

BY ZACH STUBBLEFIELD

Protests have been being staged all across the country in the wake of Donald Trump’s election as president.

People are expressing their displeasure and discontent with the new president, but they must be careful. News media only cover stories for so long. If protests become a daily occurrence they may lose their significance and news reporters will stop covering them.
In other words, more protests will make them lose their newsworthiness.

I am not saying that people should not protest. They absolutely should. It is one of the most clear and visible ways for the common person to express their grievances with the government and its leaders.

And Trump being elected raises a lot of problems with the government, but the protesting the mere fact that he got elected will not change anything. He is going to be the next president of the United States. It is too late to change that.

Instead of using up all the newsworthiness of protests now people should save the big protests when he actually does something awful. Which I am sure is bound to happen.

That is when people need to most be heard, because we must show that his inevitable actions are not okay.

Protests in response to what Trump has done need to be shown for an impact to truly be made. Not protests about the mere fact that he got elected. For now we must give him a chance and be ready to give backlash when he messes up so these protests can recieve the most coverage possible.

So please don’t over-saturate the news with protests now. Just wait a little longer until he actually does something about which to protest.

Did news coverage help elect Trump?

Posted on by

By NYAH TENNELL

In light of the recent election of Donald Trump into the White House, I have begun to evaluate the news media’s role in Trump’s apparent success.

Although a lot of us were sure that Trump’s rhetoric would keep him out of the White House, clearly, we were wrong. Which leads me to ask, how in the name of God, did Trump get voted into the world’s most prestigious and powerful position?

Well, let us start by considering the fact that, out of all of the presidential hopefuls, Trump received the most news media coverage.

According to a study conducted by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on media and politics, Trump received 34 percent of news coverage when compared with his other GOP candidates: Jeb Bush receiving 18 percent, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson both with 14 percent, Ted Cruz with 13 percent, and last, and most certainly least, John Kasich with a mere 7 percent of all GOP media coverage.

A New York Times article written by Patrick Healey in late 2015 notes that, Trump “had planned to spend $15 million on campaign commercials this summer but did not because of the “free nationwide publicity” that the cable news networks provided.

This is due to the fact that Trump’s main business plan during the course of his campaign was to manipulate the media and, in particular, monopolize airtime.

Far too many networks fell victim to Trump’s ploys, and every raunchy, explosive, or controversial thing he said became headlines, allowing Trump to use cable’s widespread dissemination and availability to do the advertising for him.

 US News refers to Trump as “The Master of Manipulation”, and as much as I would like to disagree, Trump has done an outstanding job in using his unprecedented rhetoric, scandals, and controversies to bank on airtime.

“Trump never stopped dominating the media,” reads the headline of Farai Chideya’s FiveThirtyEight article, and “the master” manipulator, Trump seems to second that notion.

“I’ve gotten so much free advertising, it’s like nothing I’d have expected,” he told the Times. “When you look at cable television, a lot of the programs are 100 percent Trump, so why would you need more Trump during the commercial breaks?”

Well, as difficult as it may be to leave, Donald Trump is indeed the next president of this fine country and, unfortunately, I congratulate him and wish him the best for the sake of ALL mankind.

A national self-analysis underway

Posted on by

By MARISSA VONESH

After the United States’ presidential election on Nov. 8, 2016, Donald Trump won the election despite political polls that projected Hillary Clinton to win by a landslide.

Major news outlets, such as The New York Times and the Huffington Post, made predictions that were wrong, writing off Trump and proclaiming Clinton as the absolute winner.

Once Trump won, many voters across the nation felt misled by mainstream news media. In an article from The New York Times, the media company explained how numerous letters came in asking why it was so off and proclaiming mistrust in the news and journalists in general. Furthermore, mistrust and disdain was heard – loud and clear – as subscriptions to The New York Times were canceled.

The news media outlets, namely The Times, have began processing what went wrong and how they can improve in the future.

Journalism is designed to create a well-informed voting public, and whether or not the American agencies did that this election season is up to question. Most of the election coverage had a liberal bias, almost all news outlets missed the views and representation of rural America – which ended up being a deciding factor in the election – and now agencies are covering more fear about Trump than potential policies and positives Trump could mean for the country.

America is not just the urban centers of New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami and Chicago. There is no need to spin more fear, more panic and more drama into the American public that already feels disheartened about this past election season.

The inconsistencies with current polling techniques are a large reason to blame for the surprise win of Trump, but more importantly, the way the news media are continuing to cover the aftermath of the election is disappointing. Opinions and emotion are exaggerated and objective opinions seem to be a thing of the past.

In a period in American history where it is absolutely vital for journalists to be objective, expose injustices and represent the public, media agencies have fallen short.

Potentially, Trump winning the presidency could help expose journalists to areas of improvement.

Editors and journalists are already confronting the change.

“If I have a mea culpa for journalists and journalism, it’s that we’ve got to do a much better job of being on the road, out in the country, talking to different kinds of people than the people we talk to,” Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, said.

Baquet makes a point, the bubble of social media, community groups and families does not paint the whole picture of the story. My hope is that journalists continue to improve and continue to strive to serve and inform the American public.

Election trumps paralysis advancement

Posted on by

By ELIZABETH GELBAUGH

The development of a wireless connection between the brain and spinal cord has enabled monkeys with paralysis in one leg to walk again without being hooked up to a computer, scientists reported Wednesday.

Though the information must still be processed in a computer, the new technology has made the device wearable.

This scientific achievement shows great promise for future treatments for paralysis in humans that could potentially extend beyond paralysis of merely one leg.

The discovery is by no means a miracle cure for paralysis but is a key development in the rehabilitation process due to its strengthening of the remaining connections between the injured limb and spinal cord.

David Borton, of Brown University, developed the wireless sensor with colleagues while doing doctoral work, according to James Gorman’s article in The New York Times.

This advancement is pivotal in the treatment of spinal cord injuries, so why isn’t it front-page news?

The simple answer: Donald Trump was elected president of the United States.

After scrolling through several pages of articles, this one barely caught my attention because of the small headline and haphazard placement. A discovery that could improve millions of lives in the future was trumped (pun intended) by the sensationalized concerns of today.

Many Americans are thrilled by Trump’s election, but others fear for the nation’s future. If Americans are so concerned about the future, why isn’t an article with potentially life-changing results given more attention.

Out of all the major news organization, excluding scientific journals, The New York Times and CBC News were the only organization to cover this story so far.

News media should spend more time covering medical discoveries and developments that are constantly progressing and advancing rather than dwelling on circumstances that cannot be changed.

Yes, a presidential election is an important historical event that should be covered in the news. However, it should not dominate news to the point where other important stories are ignored almost entirely.