Tag Archives: Political reporting

Trump denies offering to pay legal fees

Posted on by

By MELISSA CABRAL

Donald Trump backpedalled his promise to pay the legal fees of his supporters who are turning violent at his rallies when the subject was brought up on his interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Tuesday.

“By paying those fees, wouldn’t you be rewarding and encouraging violence?” asked host George Stephanopoulous.

At one of his recent rallies in February, Trump controversially told his supporters who became violent towards protesters: “Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.”

After the “Good Morning America” host continued to press him on the matter, Trump denied ever saying those words.

“No, no I didn’t say that. I haven’t looked at it yet, and nobody’s asked me to pay for fees, and somebody asked me a question and I haven’t even seen it, so I never said I was going to pay for fees,” the Republican presidential candidate said.

As recently as this past Sunday, Trump was still promising to monetarily take care of his supporters when it came to legal fees regarding violence.

In his interview on “Meet the Press,” which aired Sunday, Trump said that he had his staff “look into” covering the legal fees of one supporter in particular who punched a protester at his rally held in North Carolina last Wednesday.

“I’ve actually instructed my people to look into it, yes,” Trump replied when asked about paying the fees.

Tuesday’s interview had Trump conveniently retracting and even denying his previous statements. When asked if telling his supporters that he would cover their legal fees if they became violent towards his protesters would be encouraging negative behavior he seemed to have a change of heart.

“Well maybe so, and maybe that’s why I wouldn’t do it. I don’t condone violence at all, and you know I looked and I watched and I’m going to make a decision.”

This statement comes after intense criticism of his campaign after several of his rallies became chaotic and violent last week.

Trump defends penis size

Posted on by

By VICTORIA DE CARDENAS

The day has finally come, the day where politicians talk about their privates rather than politics.

Donald Trump assured voters on Thursday that there was “no problem” with the size of his hands — or anything else.

This came after Marco Rubio suggested Trump has small hands, a decades’ old insult from Vice Magazine who called him “a short-fingered vulgarian,” according to John Oliver.

“He’s always calling me Little Marco. And I’ll admit he’s taller than me. He’s like 6-2, which is why I don’t understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5-2,” Rubio said in Virginia on Sunday. “And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them.”

Apparently, Trump has never been able to forget that insult because he seemed so bothered by it.

But what is really upsetting, is the fact that we have grown men arguing about the size of their penises rather than the real problems in politics. And if that wasn’t enough, news outlets are reporting it.

Not to say that journalists are not to report it but don’t give more attention to it than it already needs. Journalists should not be entertaining their inappropriate jokes between presidential candidates as much as they have been.

My personal Facebook account has been flooded with this unusual joke and it makes me wonder why we care journalists are having a field day with it. Maybe it brings in more readers, which I must argue that it is a good way to bring in readers but it shouldn’t be your top priority. This belongs at the end of your broadcast.

Journalists have a job to report things and tell the truth, but this joke is way too revealing.

Swastika in Swiss train station removed

Posted on by

By SARAH BRANDT

A swastika image has received a lot of hate and criticism from the Swiss population.

The SBB is the national railway company of Switzerland. It hung up the sign as a protest against immigrants being allowed into Switzerland.

According to the Tages Anzeiger, a Swiss newspaper, customers of the SBB have been deeply hurt.

Technically, the SBB must allow such advertisement. According to a rule made in 2012, the open spaces in train stations count as public space. However due to many strong reactions from customers the SBB has removed the sign.

As this sign is pretty well known to most of the population, it received a lot of media attention from all over Switzerland. No matter that the sign was only present in a few train station, people were not happy. This in return got the attention of the media, which caused even more people to read about it.

Newspapers and radio stations went to the train stations to talk to people, and ask them their opinion. It was no shock that all the interviewed customers did not want the sign up. This caused the news media to write and report about the feelings the people had. With the help of the news media the sign was removed, which makes a lot of people happy.

And now, h-e-r-e’s Donnie!

Posted on by

By JEAN-PAUL AGUIRRE

Well, another day of the news media’s time spent on Donald Trump. This election campaign is turning into our reality, or should I say, our reality show.

I am writing this on March 2, 2016—the day after Super Tuesday, which so happened to fall on my birthday — and who did I spend my birthday with, you ask? Well, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, of course.

Clinton and Trump won the day for their respective parties; each earned the delegates of seven states to take even larger leads in the race to become their party’s nominee.

All I have heard today from the news media has been arguments for and against Trump and the strategies that the establishment group of Republican Party leaders should implement to prevent Trump from becoming their nominee.

There has been little to no mention of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or the Democratic Party, if only to show the results from last night and compare them to Donald Trump, who I am now going to refer to as “Donnie” because I am bored from hearing his name everywhere, all the time.

The news media have been so saturated with Trump that most of my social media is inundated with articles involving the controversialist. I feel as though the news media are trying to suffocate me with all things Trump.

As I was watching CNN, I saw some scrolling text at the bottom of its graphic, which showed that the culprit behind the murders of the two Virginia college students, Jesse Matthew Jr., has been sentenced to four consecutive life sentences after pleading guilty.

You would think that such news would at least garner a minute, or two, of screen time to be addressed to the public, but no, the news media have opted to focus on Donnie once again.

It has become abundantly clear that this is our reality, our reality show.

Carson sees ‘no path forward’ in race

Posted on by

By MELISSA CABRAL

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson announced Wednesday that he will not be attending Detroit’s Thursday GOP debate and sees “no political path forward” with his bid for presidency after Super Tuesday’s underwhelming results.

Although he will not be attending the debate being held in his hometown, reports confirm that the retired neurosurgeon will not be stepping down as a candidate. In a statement shared on all his social media sites, Carson told his supporters that he would discuss the future of his campaign Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

“Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America,” Carson said. “I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results. However, this grassroots movement on behalf of “We the People” will continue.”

In recent debates, Carson has been out-shined by fellow candidates Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Carson has said that he has struggled to gain any speaking time during the heated debates. This has caused his numbers to tumble, finishing no higher than fourth in any state during Super Tuesday.

During Thursday’s Houston debate, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio joined forces with a plan to take down Trump attacking the controversial candidate many times throughout the debate, leaving no room for Carson to put a word in.

At one point, Carson interrupted and jumped in.

“Can someone attack me please,” he said in a plea to get some talk time.

This downfall comes as a surprise to most of us since last fall, during the launch of his presidential campaign, Carson rose to the top among the likes of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Although he has denied ending his bid for presidency, it is highly likely that Carson will be stepping down from the race within the next coming days.

Television interviewing with integrity

Posted on by

By ROBYN SHAPIRO

Recently on “Morning Joe,” co-anchor Mika Brzezinski interviewed Donald Trump’s wife, Melania Trump. Brzezinski asked questions ranging from “Tell us about yourself” and “how did you fall in love with Donald,” to “How do you feel about your husband’s swearing” and her opinions about people calling him names. While these questions may have satisfied some viewer curiosity, they did yet touch the larger picture.

As the interview progressed, Brzezinski started to ask questions the audience was truly wondering. She asked Melania questions about what she thought of Trump’s rationales. As an immigrant from Slovenia, what was her opinion of her husband’s views on immigration? How did she feel about her husband calling Mexicans rapists?

While Melania answered the questions diplomatically and rationalized her husband’s opinions, she answers were somewhat vague. Though Brzezinski could have further interrogated her with questions, she held her journalistic integrity to let her answer and then move on to another pertinent question.

When presenting information to an audience it is imperative that the person providing the news stays calm and objective in order to deliver a message unbiased. I felt that Brzezinski’s interview was well done, because while she was straightforward in her questioning, she did not interrogate Melania Trump with inquiries after she answered. While she may have been frustrated by Melania’s lack of personal opinion and detail in her responses, Brzezinski held her cool and did not argue.

The news should be objectively delivered at all costs. While it may be difficult not to have opinion intertwined, it is important that viewers develop their own opinion from information that is presented. Getting emotionally involved (especially showing frustration or annoyance) in a topic shows a lack of professionalism and could persuade a viewer.

When information is objectively given it encourages viewers to do more research on the topic in order to develop an opinion. This consequently, encourages the audience to be more educated about the topics at hand.

Has Trump sealed the deal?

Posted on by

By ROXANNE YU

When Donald Trump filed his statement of candidacy a few months ago, no one would have expected him to go very far, much less sustain a significant lead among Republican candidates.

Now that it’s dawning upon the country that Trump actually has a shot at becoming the next president, CNN is already commenting what’s next if Trump takes over the White House.

Trump, who won the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday night, is unsurprisingly under the spotlight for his recent success. When the results showed how his percentages compare to that of the other candidates, the businessman turned presidential candidate has distinctly marked New Hampshire, South Carolina and now Nevada, to be “Trump states.”

From one state to the next, Trump is consistently pulling further away from his fellow Republican candidates and it’s looking more likely that there is a big possibility for Trump to heighten his momentum come Super Tuesday.

Alongside Trump’s efforts to power through the Republican polls, it’s also interesting to read about what the news has to say about this Trump frenzy phenomenon going on.

CNN has just released a number of news stories entitled What would Trump’s be first day in office look like and Trump’s Day 1-to-do-list. With the release of these web stories, it appears as though what’s being presented to the audience is an indirect opinionated piece that can influence public opinion.

Although CNN has not shown any support for Trump in any regard, it’s almost doing the same as straightforwardly subjecting the public to count Rubio and Cruz out.

Conspiracies arise after Scalia death

Posted on by

By VICTORIA DE CARDENAS

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on Saturday at a resort in West Texas.

Scalia died in his sleep during a visit to Texas. A government official said Scalia went to bed Friday night and told friends he wasn’t feeling well. He didn’t get up for breakfast on Saturday morning, and the group he was with for a hunting trip left without him.

Someone at the ranch went to check up on Scalia and found him unresponsive.

According to The Washington Post, it took hours for authorities to find a justice of the peace. When they did, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and without ordering an autopsy. Judge Guevara has the right to do so under the Texas law.

Guevara said she declared Scalia dead based on information from law enforcement officials on the scene, who assured her that “there were no signs of foul play.” She later said Scalia was weakened from a heart condition and had high blood pressure, according to The Associated Press.

The conspiracy theories kicked into high gear after the owner of the ranch where Scalia died told a Texas newspaper that Scalia had “a pillow over his head” and no autopsy was ordered. This made a former D.C. homicide commander raise questions of the late Supreme Court judge’s death.

“As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was ordered for Justice Scalia,” William O. Ritchie, former head of criminal investigations for D.C. police, wrote in a post on Facebook on Sunday, according to The Washington Post.

It should be noted that members of Scalia’s family did not request for an autopsy.

The news media made a frenzy of the conspiracy theories. Why did the news media find the need to bring attention to conspiracy theories? The family of Justice Scalia knew he was not in the best health, especially at his age.

As soon as the news outlets got a hold on statements from the family about his death, why continue to publish articles about his death. His death was over shadowed by Washington’s quick decision to replace him. The country couldn’t more his death in a peaceful way without the media reminding everyone that he now needs a replacement in the Court.

Personally, i couldn’t get through a paragraph into any article without the news media talking about either a conspiracy theory or waiting to fill his seat in the Court. The news media should be more sensitive to someone who holds an important seat in Washington,

Pope Francis, Trump battle over faith

Posted on by

By KATIE HOVAN

On Thursday, Pope Francis said in a press conference that Donald Trump “is not a Christian” if he advocates building a wall at the Mexican and U.S. border.

CNN quickly reported on the event with the headline: “Pope suggests Trump ‘is not a Christian.’”

Trump quickly fired back, stating that the Pope does not reserve “the right to question another man’s religion.”

While Trump has every right to defend himself and his religious beliefs, CNN and many major news networks do not understand that sometimes something as little as a headline can add fuel to an already raging fire.

The news media have the ability to stimulate divisiveness whether it is intentional or not, and only later in the article does it explain that the Pope also said he wasn’t fully informed about the situation, but was willing to give Trump the “benefit of the doubt.”

Instead, the news media capitalized on the Pope’s most controversial statement in its headline and throughout the majority of the article.

Trump now has his eyes set on the Pope, adding, “If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS … I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president.”

While an initial retaliation is to be expected from Trump, any growing tension between the two of them will be a product of media influence.

Because of the disproportionate reporting and over-exaggeration by the media, people will often fail to realize that the Pope is a religious leader. He was elected under the condition that he would uphold the Catholic values and, whether one agrees with him or not, he was simply answering a question about Trump in accordance with those values.

Saying goodbye to Justice Scalia

Posted on by

By ROXANNE YU

With the presidential campaign underway, the news media have placed a lot of focus on updating their audiences on the latest polls and debates. It’s no longer a shock to see Donald Trump’s face streamed across headline pages of different news websites. One story, however, has been leading topic for the past few days, catching the attention of the public and overshadowing news about the presidential candidates.

The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has recently been the talk of the nation. Scalia, the longest serving justice on the court, was found dead in a resort in West Texas.

It has been confirmed that the 79-year-old Italian-American, died from a heart attack. Scalia’s family and colleagues grieve for his death, but it’s also worth taking a closer look with regards to how the news media presented his passing.

Hours after the public was informed of Scalia’s death, articles on the vacancy of the late  justice’s position were published online. It makes perfect sense to fill an empty seat, but was it so urgent to have the need to look for a replacement almost as soon as the spot was empty?

I find it insensitive on the news media’s part to have rushed the publication of finding Scalia’s new successor. The least the news media could have done was give Scalia’s family more time to grieve for its loss.

Campaign so far: Mostly entertainment?

Posted on by

By ROBYN SHAPIRO

With the passing of the Obama era, a new chapter in our nation’s political life is unfolding. Tuesday marked the beginning of that history as voters decided for whom to vote in the New Hampshire primary.

In article after article, reporters have emphasized the cutthroat competition candidates have displayed during their debates, speeches and advertising.

Recently, The New York Times has provided a map of “who’s bad mouthing who” in the Republican Party’s advertising campaigns. You can find it at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/08/us/politics/republican-presidential-candidates-attacks-new-hampshire.html.

While the news media have provided detailed statements about what the competition has said about one another, it has been seriously lacking in the most important information of the election: the presidential candidate’s platforms.

Everyone knows that Jeb Bush said “Donald Trump is a jerk” or that Donald Trump called Ted Cruz a “pussy” and while this certainly captures one’s attention, it holds more value as entertainment than it does as information.

For the average busy person who has not had time to sit down and watch the all of the debates and speeches of the candidates, the platforms remain unclear.

The news media should be providing a baseline understanding of the candidate’s platforms, especially before the primaries sweep the nation. It has emphasized the “high school personality” reputation between candidates rather than focusing on the leadership and content. By doing this, uninformed voters aren’t choosing to vote for the right reasons.

Accessibility is everything, so making the candidates’ platforms as available as possible is crucial for an educated vote. If the news media provided a briefing article attached to the so-called “newsworthy” smack talk, it would at least give the opportunity to readily seek information about the presidential platforms.

Through out the rest of the campaigns, the news media should highlight how the candidate will handle our nation’s problems, rather than how they will handle their opponents.

Trump, the candidate who cried cheater

Posted on by

By VICTORIA DE CARDENAS

After losing to Sen. Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucus, billionaire Donald Trump has gone on a Twitter rampage.

After 12 hours of silence on social media, rare for the presidential hopeful, Trump emerged to slam the media about his lack of press coverage for coming in second.

“The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!” Trump tweeted.

Perhaps Trump was not watching the news because his second place finish is all the media was talking about the following day. It felt as if that was all the news outlets were talking about.

The media has a hard time letting go of Trump. Are his outlandish stunts what give new stations their ratings? Trumps comments are old news already, the public already knows what he says should be taken lightly.

In his latest attempt, Trump accused Cruz of voter fraud. Such a serious allegation, yet stations like CNN were quick to find out all the latest tweets of the accuser.

Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 3.11.18 PM

Why do we give characters, like Trump, the time of day? Reporters from across the nation are adding fuel to his fire instead of what is really important in the world of politics, such as the political actions Trump or any other candidate would take if elected in office.

Journalists are committed to reporting the events in the world but many events do not revolve around Trump and his antics. Hopefully the New Hampshire primary gives anchors and reporters alike something different to talk about.

Governors refuse Syrian refugees

Posted on by

By MEREDITH SLOAN

According to ABC News, at least half of the country’s governors are refusing to take in Syrian refugees in their states amid heightened security concerns following last Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Paris terrorist attacks, in which 129 people were killed. Since Friday’s attacks, ISIS has threatened to attack Washington, D.C., and New York.

This chilling effect has influenced several United States governors to refuse Syrian refugees. Ultimately the federal government decides on matters of immigration, not the states.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas has taken to Twitter to express his opposition to allowing refugees.

This tweet caused a mostly negative reaction from his followers and media consumers alike.

An individual with the twitter handle @jonvox responded to Hutchinson’s tweet saying, “ You are a horrible man and make me embarrassed to be an Arkansan.”

Likewise, Facebook and YouTube have been flooded with political comics and videos that compare the current refugee crisis to World War II.

Those who support the relocation of refugees in the United States have compared the current government opposition specifically to the opposition towards Jewish refugees.

The dissenting opinion of the U.S. governors is less likely to be accepted by media consumers on social media because of the chilling effect of terrorism.

Chaotic GOP debate causes concern

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

This past Wednesday night, I gathered with a group of students inside the faculty master apartment at Mahoney Residential College to watch the Republican presidential candidates debate.

Personally, I had several expectations for the debate based off of the previous Republican debate hosted by Fox. However, what myself and millions of people watched Wednesday night, was truly unexpected.

First off, there were 10 candidates on the stage. With so many candidates, it is hard to keep track of everyone’s stance on serious matters, such as reforming the tax code, to less relevant issues, such as the regulation of fantasy sports gambling.

But, what further complicated the already difficult matter of keeping track of all of the candidates’ viewpoints were the moderators. It became apparent very quickly that the moderators were not in control of the debate as candidates not only cut each other off, but also interrupted, talked over and even challenged the moderators.

The debate was two hours of utter chaos and the Republican candidates are not happy about it. Their discontent has been broadcast and shared on various networks and social media sites, with new reports of the candidates coming together to protest the RNC and demand control over who moderates the upcoming debates as well as what questions are asked.

While I understand, that the candidates are upset, I think it would not be a true or fair debate if candidates had the ability to control virtually all aspects of the debate. While Ben Carson believes that debates should not be a game of “gotcha” questions, I disagree. Yes, a debate’s main purpose is to allow candidates to share and explain their platform on several issues and policies affecting the country, but it is also an opportunity for their ideals to be tested and challenged in front of the public.

A debate should not be a time where candidates walk on stage and present their ideals unchallenged and unquestioned–that is the whole point of a debate. While I agree with the candidates that Wednesday’s debate was chaotic, it should not serve as the catalyst to grant candidates full reign over all aspects of a debate.

Myanmar elections and social media

Posted on by

By MEREDITH SLOAN

An opposition candidate in Myanmar is recovering after being attacked by men at a campaign rally.

The National League for Democracy (NLD) candidate Naing Ngan Lin was rushed to hospital with head and hand injuries from wielding knives and swords, but the party said his life was not in danger.

The Myanmar government rules its nation through authoritative practices. Since the late eighties, many Myanmar citizens have expressed extreme distaste in the violence and censorship of media.

Myanmar has fallen behind the rest of the world with new technology. The government, however, refuses to adapt to technology since it maintains a stronghold on all information relevant to the elections.

Cell phones and social media have recently become somewhat accessible for wealthy citizens of Myanmar. This allows for virtual communication among individuals, universities, governments and everything in-between.

Mobile phones pose a risk to the Myanmar government during election time because the government will lose authoritative control over content posted.

The upcoming election has the potential to drastically change Myanmar’s participation socially, politically and economically in modern-day society. If Myanmar citizens use social media, other countries will pay closer attention to what the people want.

I plan on closely following the election coverage from Myanmar from news outlets, but more importantly, social media.

Chafee’s campaign comes to end

Posted on by

By CHARLOTTE MACKINNON

When I was going through the news this morning, I noticed that among the headlines regarding the primary race for the upcoming 2016 election was Lincoln Chafee’s announcement that he was ending his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Being that Chafee is the former governor of Rhode Island, my home state, I had been keeping up with his campaign since he announced his participation this past June. Since then, he hasn’t had an overwhelming amount of support behind him – Hillary Clinton has surely been stealing the spotlight lately, especially this past week where she did well in the debates and her competition, Virginia Senator Jim Webb as well as Vice President Joe Biden, both dropped out. The fact that he followed suit isn’t exactly groundbreaking news to many.

Regardless, seeing the announcement brought back a few memories of when he was actively governing my home state that made me think about all the pressures that politicians face when they constantly have the media watching their every move.

Chafee’s son, Caleb, was actually a high school classmate of mine when I attended Portsmouth Abbey School. He was in the graduating class above mine and we were good friends, as we both boarded on campus and it was a close-knit community. The week of his graduation, all the seniors ended their classes earlier than the rest of the students, and we had final exams while they were celebrating “grad week” – an annual week notorious for off-campus parties.

Caleb threw a party at his house while his parents were out of town and one girl who attended it ended up being hospitalized for alcohol poisoning. Everyone there was obviously under age, and the police inevitably got involved. Suffice to say, it stirred up a lot of publicity seeing as the party took place at the governor’s house and Rhode Island has a strict social host law which left Gov. Chafee responsible for the events that took place there. It was a bit of a local scandal in the weeks surrounding the incident.

Obviously what had happened was innocent enough, and there wasn’t that much damage done by the news media to Chafee’s reputation in the aftermath, but it did leave an impact on Caleb’s personal life (he ended up having to defer a year from Brown to do community service abroad in order to restore the University’s confidence in him as a freshman admit).

At the time, I didn’t really know much about the news media’s role in politics, but now that I’m a journalism major, it makes me more fully understand how critical that role is. Had the incident happened this past spring, Chafee may never have decided to even enter the race at all, considering it would have occurred in entirely different circumstances.

The incident would have been magnified under the lens of the news media and entire nation would have known about it — and it would have been used as a weapon against him by his competitors.  The things that occur to a person have an entirely different meaning when that person is a potential presidential candidate and it is the media that is single-handedly responsible for this fact.

Although the incident happened years ago and is water under the bridge at this point in time, especially since Chafee is no longer campaigning, it’s very interesting to me how I can look at the things that have happened in the past now with the eyes of a journalist, rather than just another on-looker.

Hillary emerges as victorious at hearing

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

If you checked major news networks online today, most of them displayed the following headlines:

ABC: “The ‘get Hillary’ committee did not get Hillary”

Politico: “Clinton Survives 11-hour Benghazi grilling”

Tribune: “11-hour grilling of Clinton reveals little new on Benghazi attacks”

USA Today: “No clear wins for GOP at Benghazi hearing”

Over the course of the past few months, Hillary Clinton has been questioned — and most people would say attacked — regarding the use of her personal email service in relation to the Benghazi attacks that took place in 2012 killing four people.

It seems as though Hillary Clinton has been questioned about the use of her private email server since the beginning of her campaign.

Hillary was questioned and provided testimony for more 11 hours yesterday, being questioned by a House Select Committee on Benghazi. Nearly all news organizations provided extensive and in-depth coverage of the meetings, with CNN providing hourly updates on their website and on live news.

Based on what I have seen, what is happening to Hillary Clinton is the political equivalent of a witch hunt during the Salem trials. Hillary Clinton has been questioned beyond the point of acceptability regarding this issue and each time, her response is the same and clear. The fact that the media has still continued to cover this issue in regards to Hillary Clinton is unbelievable, as well as the fact that this special committee was even created.

Comparatively, the news has covered Donald Trump in a similar fashion, but the coverage has only seemed to benefit him. However, with Hillary Clinton, the coverage of this issue is affecting her campaign.

Her numbers have gone down in the polls and her trustworthiness has been damaged and questioned by a large majority of the American public. However, there is hope for Hillary with this situation. As indicated by the news/article titles above, it is clear that most news networks believe that Hillary not only survived the 11-hour meeting, but that she has gained an ability to turn the tide and direction of the Benghazi story and her private email server.

As a young voter, I did question Hillary’s trustworthiness because of the coverage of the Benghazi “email scandal.” After completing my own research on the topic, my views have changed and I am proud that Hillary was able to not only successfully survive yesterday’s meeting, but that she may now be able to gain control over the situation and thus her campaign.

Coverage of debate may sway voters

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

The first Democratic Debate took place this past Tuesday, hosted by CNN and sponsored by Facebook. The debate featured Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee. According to Fortune.com, more people watched NCIS (a popular TV Show on CBS) as opposed to the Democratic Debate Tuesday night, with 15.3 million total viewers.

Before, during, and after the debate, people took to various social media outlets to voice their thoughts and opinions of the debate. One of the dormitories on the University of Miami campus, Mahoney Residential College, held a watch party for the debate in the one of the faculty masters’ apartment.  Therefore, I did not have to turn to social media in order to receive live commentary from my peers.

We all watched the debate, laughed at its funny moments, clapped when were all in agreement with what one of the candidates had said, and groaned when in disagreement. In between commercial breaks we held quick discussions about our thoughts on the candidates so far.

At the end, we all had our own opinions of who to vote for as the democratic candidate. However, at no point during our discussion did we declare “winners” and “losers.” We all took what the candidates had to say at face value and decided whether or not we agreed with their values.

But the next day, I was bombarded by all major news networks declaring who they thought were the “winners” and “losers” of the debate. Of course in my mind (as well as most people), I had already determined who I thought best represented what I sought in a presidential candidate, but I was interested to see and hear what the news networks had to say.

As I read and watched several news stories from various news networks, it became clear that the person I thought did the “best” or “won” was not what the news thought. As I watched more coverage of the debate, I began to question my choice: Did I pick the best candidate? I began to second guess my decision wondering if I had made the right decision.

After speaking with several of my friends, a majority of them expressed the same sentiments. After watching the debate, they had an idea of who they wanted to potentially vote for. But after watching several news networks declare the same person as the “winner,” they began to doubt their choice as it was not in agreement with the majority of news organizations.

While I think that news organizations should report on the debates, I think they should do it objectively. Declaring “winners” and “losers” of a debate that was not designed to have a winner, can confuse and sway the public. Instead of selecting winners and losers, the news should highlight each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses during the debate, providing the public with unbiased information and enabling voters to make well-informed decisions.

The Democratic Debate did not have any winners or losers. Instead, the Democratic Debate showcased the strengths, weaknesses, values, and opinions of each candidate, and coverage of the debate should reflect that.

A new perspective on the debates

Posted on by

By ISABELLA MESQUITA

CNN produced a virtual reality version of last Tuesday’s presidential debate telecast and succeeded at what many major media companies have been competing to do since Samsung’s GearVR technology came out.

Not only was this real-time streaming a milestone for CNN technologically speaking, it was also a wise marketing choice. Despite the record 980,000 online viewers, around 73 countries logged onto the VR live stream causing the debates on CNN to be ranked as the #10 cable program with the greatest audience – behind college football games on ESPN and the Fox debate last month.

For the new VR technology streaming, two cameras were installed near the questioners, allowing VR viewers to see how the candidates reacted to each other. Another camera was placed right behind the candidates’ podiums and a fourth camera was embedded in the seating area. With this, anyone with the VR app or the VR headsets had a priviledged 360-degree view of the debate.

According to DJ Roller, co-founder of Next VR and CNN’s partner for the live-stream,“You’d probably get attacked by the Secret Service if you tried to get as close as these cameras! With VR each and every viewer has a seat in the room and a new perspective on presidential debates.” 

CNN plays a Trump card

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

CNN was put on the defense this past Wednesday, after commenting on the lack of attendance at an event held by Donald Trump (current Republican candidate for president) at the South Carolina African American Chamber of Commerce annual conference.

The following day, Trump went on the defense claiming that the reason there were photos or videos of the room being half-empty was because everyone “rushed” to the front of the room when he began speaking. He then went on to personally attack the CNN reporter who covered the story, calling her “terrible” and a “horrible reporter.”

But the CNN reporter was, in fact, reporting what had truly taken place at this event. The room was half-empty before Trump began speaking and after he began speaking. And of the half-full room of attendees, the majority of the people were white, disputing Trump’s claim that there were “many African Americans there.”

I watch the news on a daily basis and, based on what I have seen in regards to the coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign for presidency, it seems as though most news organizations have been tip-toeing around Trump afraid of his reaction.

This past week, Trump recently announced via Twitter that he was done with FOX and would not be doing any more shows with the network. But Trump has done this before. He threw a similar temper tantrum with FOX in August. Shortly after, he spoke with Fox’s network Chief Roger Ailes who “smoothed” things over and Trump was back on Fox.

As Trump has been garnering a large amount of attention from viewers, news networks are inclined to satiate the candidate and not ruffle his feathers in order to have him on their broadcasts for higher ratings. But it seems as though, more and more networks are reaching their limit with the brash candidate.

Shortly after CNN covered the story, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press reported on the story as well — mirroring CNN’s report. They all came to same conclusion: Donald Trump did speak to a half-empty room which consisted mainly of white people.

They didn’t beat around the bush or come up with excuses for the candidate. They simply reported on what actually happened, supporting CNN as a news organization. The Associated Press wrote in their article that, “CNN’s assessment appears to have been the correct one.”

I applaud CNN and the other news networks that stood behind CNN, for finally calling a spade, a spade Trump.