Tag Archives: Political reporting

Ted cruises past Donald in Wisconsin

Posted on by

By JEAN-PAUL AGUIRRE

This week, once again, the presidential election has encompassed our lives and the lives of the new media as the Wisconsin Republican primaries were this week.

The results came as somewhat of a surprise, Ted Cruz beat Donald Trump, and now all the pundits are getting ready for a contested election on the Republican side.

All the news media are calling this one of the worst, if not the worst, weeks Trump has seen since entering the election. This all come of the heels of him posting a picture comparing his wife to Ted Cruz’s wife and which of the two was better looking.

Anytime that Trump loses something it is becoming newsworthy, and I do not necessarily have a problem with it.

Social media can be the greatest gift if used for the right reason or for the right cause. If you are trying to spread the word out or disseminate important information nowadays, Twitter and Facebook are the way to go.

However, social media can be one of the greatest curses, too. It only takes one miss-step or bad re-Tweet to derail everything you had been working to up to that point.

My quarrel with the news media is that I have seen more coverage about how this loss affects Trump’s plans and the steps he is taking in case it gets to a contested convention.

I would like to see a more in-depth look at the different scenarios and what each candidate would have to do in order to win. When they mention they seem to sweep it under the rug, especially when the news media talks about John Kasich.

I also would like to know more about what the Republican Party plans to do if they get the contested convention they have been hoping for and whether it will affect Trump’s chances of becoming the party’s nominee.

Why Brazil hates its president

Posted on by

By ROBYN SHAPIRO

Brazil’s unemployment rate has increased from 7.6 percent in January to 8.1 percent in February with a climbing projected average of 8.2 percent this year. As the economy continues to decline and the government corruption surfaces, anti-government activists and the general public fill the streets of Brazil in protest.

President Dilma Rousseff has been publicly denounced for accepting bribes from the state-owned energy company Petrobras (a petroleum company) from 2003 to 2010.

Her approval ratings dropped exponentially in 2015 because of her increasing unemployment, economy digression, weak currency and rising inflation. While her original campaign stood on her allegiance to the poor Brazilians, many of them feel betrayed by her actions it has not reflected their interests.

In two recently published articles by The Guardian and The Washington Post, both presented her side of the story and gave many direct quotations of why she is choosing to not resign and her opinions on the protests. These articles present the information in an unbiased way, but do not provide background information to why the Brazilian people want to impeach their president.

BCC News covered the protests in a package called “Brazil protesters call for President Rouseff to resign” (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35798875). In this package, protesters acknowledge the depth of the government corruption and how she has not helped Brazil’s plummeting economy.

While both sets of articles provide unbiased information, I believe it would be extremely beneficial to the outside public to have a brief description of the opposition before being presented the information. While no article was pro anti- government or pro-Rousseff, having a background prior to presenting one side of information in each article, would be beneficial for the audience in order to form an educated opinion.

Bias, opinions of political news coverage

Posted on by

By BREANA ROSS

Most news viewers are aware that different news stations have different political views that affect the way they report news. MSNBC tends to lean more towards liberal and Democratic views while Fox tends to support conservative and Republican views.

The news from these stations is reported in such a way that reflects these views. For example, one MSNBC talk show host had no problem sharing her political opinion as she discussed her analysis of Donald Trump’s recent violent rallies.

After a series of clashes between protestors and supporters at Trump’s rallies, Rachel Maddow decided to break down the events on her MSNBC show. The way Maddow chose to discuss and present the information was an interesting approach. Her overarching point was that Donald Trump’s rhetoric during his rallies led to the recent outbursts in Chicago and elsewhere. Maddow takes many pieces of factual information and connects them together to support her opinion.

First off, Maddow points out that the last three stops on Trump’s campaign trail, Chicago, Cleveland, and St. Louis, all contain a great deal of racial tension. This tension stems from the recent police killings of unarmed black teens in these areas.

Maddow points out that many of the recent instances of violence at Trump’s rallies seem to be racially charged. She then begins showing clips from Donald Trump’s speeches at his rallies, where he calls for “a tougher America” where protesters should face consequences, possibly violent ones.

Trump also mentions that he would pay the legal bills for anyone who beats up a protester. Maddow uses factual traces of racial tension and clips of Donald Trump’s speeches to convince viewers of her opinion that Donald Trump’s rhetoric has led to the violence that has erupted between his supporters and his opponents.

Although Rachel Maddow is a talk show host and is allowed to insert her opinion in discussions about politics, her presentation of the information is an example of how news stations can present biased news. Connecting facts to form what is ultimately an opinion is dangerous when presenting news to viewers.

Humans of NY founder criticizes Trump

Posted on by

By KATIE HOVAN

Brandon Stanton, a photojournalist and blogger, is the brain behind the increasingly popular blog and book “Humans of New York” (HONY), which chronicles stories of ordinary passersby in New York City.

Stanton will post daily photos of the people he meets on the street along with a direct quote or short story, giving people a glimpse into the lives of ordinary people.

His work isn’t limited to New York City, though.

Stanton also occasionally photographs and posts stories from people he meets on international excursions, including people in places like the Middle East.

On Monday, however, the HONY founder posted something a little different online.

In an open editorial to Donald Trump, Stanton stated: “I realize now that there is no correct time to oppose violence and prejudice. The time is always now.”

Stanton continued, “Because along with millions of Americans, I’ve come to realize that opposing you is no longer a political decision. It is a moral one.”

Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 12.33.42 PMStanton also referenced some of Trump’s most appalling comments regarding race and refugees. Stanton, referring to himself as a journalist whom has “conducted extensive interviews” with people from around the world, added: “I can confirm — the hateful one is you.”

Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 12.33.59 PMWhile some may argue the HONY founder isn’t your typical journalist, he still claims to adhere to journalism’s ethical code, stating in the editorial that he refrains from being too “political.”

In this case, as unusual as it may seem, I commend him for taking a moment from his work to be “political.”

This year’s presidential race seems to have turned uncharacteristically hostile, and it’s alarming to think that the future of our country has become a form of twisted entertainment.

But the so-called entertainment reaches a point where it isn’t funny anymore. The future of the United States shouldn’t be taken lightly.

In my honest opinion, Stanton deserves the utmost praise for his editorial. Without powerful, well-known voices to speak out on behalf of the violent and unethical situation that is unfolding, what will the United States become?

After all, it’s hypocritical to promote anti-bullying in schools if it’s happening on the federal level every day.

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.

Colombian journalist airs sex tape

Posted on by

By ETTY GROSSMAN

Last week, Colombia faced a major wiretapping scandal, which led to the resignation of various public officials.

The scandal started when prominent radio host, news anchor and journalist, Vicky Dávila published a secretly filmed video of a 2008 conversation about gay sex between Senator Carlos Ferro and Police Capitan Anyelo Palacios.

She stated that she released the video as an attempt to expose alleged grave sexual misconduct within the National Police, a complaint that has been investigated by other journalists for months.

The content of the video was so strong that it immediately forced the resignation of Ferro,  vice minister of the Interior and National Police Director General Rodolfo Palomino, who had already been charged with sexual harassment.

After the scandal, the whole country, including the news media, was divided in two. People joined either one side or the other; there was no neutral opinion in this case.

One side believed that Dávila published the video in order to help the state with the investigation of the “Fellowship of the Ring,” an alleged gay prostitution network in the police force, which cannot be tolerated. People such as Dávila, those who supported the publication of the video, concluded that the information released served as a proof of the prostitution ring.

The other side, the one I support, claimed that the broadcasting and publishing of this extremely intimate video shows zero evidence of any involvement in prostitution; instead, it only publicizes private matters of professional politicians. Yes, the video proved that the former parliamentarian had had a relationship with a policeman, but it also showed that it would have been consensual.

How are we journalists covering things? Should our beliefs affect our objectivity?

Here is where the journalism’s role as the watchdog of the public interests at its heart should be brought into question.

Colombians might be interested to know where and with who their public figures sleep at night, but since this conduct doesn’t interfere with their assigned work, it should remain private. These persons should be judged by their professional performance, what they do for sexual pleasure, as long as it’s legal, should not be considered a public concern.

The pressure and comments from social media were so explosive that the video was removed from the networks and Dávila resigned as well.

So, did she have a genuine public interest in revealing this or was it something more personal? Despite the reason, journalists should be more careful with what they are publishing.

Words are powerful, they can contribute a lot, but they can also destroy; as Ferro, the victim of this whole story said: “I hope that justice can give me back the dignity journalist Vicky Dávila wanted to snatch from me.”

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.