Tag Archives: Political reporting

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 Joe Biden’s announcement

Posted on by

By SAMANTHA COHEN

Joe Biden finally spoke on the sought-after decision as to whether or not he would be running for president in the 2016 election.

That answer is No.

The press conference at the White House Rose Garden was a sudden event with no prior knowledge given to the public or press that it was happening. The press was contacted mere hours before the statement took place. All press at moments notice ran to The White House to try and capture live shots moments before the start of the statement.

All online news organizations put breaking news messages on their website to alert readers. Live coverage was immediately available on every site. With the announcement of the statement, live coverage replaced set programs on each of these news television stations.

After the statement, coverage took place and every online news site had lead breaking news stories on Biden’s decision and what was said. There was discussion on the event thereafter in which we were able to hear opinions on the news. The manner in which news organizations were able to speedily obtain coverage of this event after not getting any notice that it was even happening is highly commendable and just goes to show how fast one has to react as a journalist.

I am interested to see how the discussions continue on this decision and how it will affect the rest of the political 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.” 

Debate coverage boosts Clinton

Posted on by

By SAMANTHA COHEN

On Tuesday night, the Democratic Party presidential candidate debates were in full swing. It was highly noticeable that news coverage was positively geared towards Hillary Clinton.

From CNN to NBC, all online news articles praised Clinton’s debate. CNN stated she was poised, passionate and in command. I find it interesting that all news organizations across the board, all agreed on something for once. Leading up to the debate all news organizations covered the debate on Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would come up on top as the top candidates.

One of the main topics that was discussed during the debate, and it has been a trending topic on social media, is Bernie Sanders comment “America is Tired of Clintons Damn Emails.” What was also interesting during this debate is that Donald Trump used social media to live Tweet his thoughts during the debate. I think that it is very interesting to have a candidate actually weight in on a debate, as it is occurring, and reaching out to the public. Trump actually praised Clinton and said she won the debate. It should be interesting to see how this positive reaction affects the rest of the race.

Do the media know who is fighting ISIS?

Posted on by

By ANASTASIA MECHAN

Two days ago president Barack Obama sat down, after nearly two years, with Russian leader, Vladimir Putin. The encounter of both political icons was not just surprising to the world for the shared time, but for the topics they discussed. One of the main issues was the fight against ISIS.

President Barack Obama said that the fight was going to be a long-term campaign, but not impossible. He also affirmed that his supporters such as Iran and Russia will help through this. Even British minister David Cameron supported Obama’s thought and talked about the Islam.

However, Putin disagreed. He insisted that Syrian president Assad must stay in power. He believes that the world should help the Syrian government now more than ever, since they are the ones facing the battle face to face.

The news became the subject of the day until the next morning. Russia was reported firing missiles at a training camp in the north Syria.

So now, most people would be like isn’t the point to put a stop on the war on Syria?

Well, Russian warplanes bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, which puts Russian and Washington on opposing sides in the Middle East conflict.

Now the question is why does the media still focusing on just Obama and Putin sitting together and discussing about the fight against ISIS at the UN and White House? Why isn’t the media reporting about what is happening in the Syria right now and how Iran randomly is sending its troops to join the Syrian war?

These are the news that we need to hear, read and see, not just Obama sitting with the Putin and hear what he thinks we should do, instead of what are we doing.

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.

Trump re-enters war with Fox News

Posted on by

By CHARLOTTE MACKINNON

It is no secret that Donald Trump has been extremely vocal when it comes to his experiences with the news media during his campaign for office these past few months. He has notoriously bashed not only individual reporters, but entire news networks themselves, and much of this has been documented through his Twitter posts and live interviews. His controversial presence on social media and verbal attacks on individual journalists as well as entire news networks has become a defining factor of his campaign – let’s review.

One of the most substantial of these feuds occurred in early August, after Trump stepped out onto the Fox News debate stage and was questioned by reporter Megyn Kelly about his sexist remarks in the past. Trump responded the next day through a twitter tantrum attacking Kelly, as well as a few other Fox News personalities. He also addressed the debacle in an interview with CNN, saying, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her … wherever.” Soon after the remark, he was disinvited to a Red State event by Erick Erickson, a Fox News contributor. It had appeared that Trump had started a war with one of the most influential networks, especially for Republicans.

Trump eventually mended his relationship with Fox News after clearing the air with Fox News CEO, Roger Ailes. But as of this past Wednesday, it appears that the “war” between Trump and Fox News is back on.

On Megyn Kelly’s Fox News talk show, conservative columnist Rich Lowry asserted that Carly Fiorina had castrated Trump during the CNN debate last week. Lowry referred to Trump’s private parts, saying that Fiorina had the “precision of a surgeon”.

Obviously, the statement created a lot of shock, prompting Trump to tweet that Lowry was “incompetent” and that “he should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.” The conflict continued to heat up, leading to Trump’s declaration via Twitter that he would be boycotting Fox News because the network has treated him “very unfairly”.

Fox News addressed Trump’s boycott in its statement about the cancellation of his scheduled appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor”, but declined to specify what had canceled the appearance. However, according to CNN, an unidentified Fox News spokesperson said about the issue: “When coverage doesn’t go his way, he engages in personal attacks on our anchors and hosts, which has grown stale and tiresome. He doesn’t seem to grasp that candidates telling journalists what to ask is not how the media works in this country.”

Now, we’re all waiting to see how long Trump’s latest war with the news media will last. A boycott with Fox News means that he will miss out on access to the millions of viewers who are tuning into the network each night for coverage of the 2016 race. And what will the repercussions be? As of Thursday afternoon, Trump is already down 8 points in the latest CNN/ORC national poll. Only time will show how his campaign will continue to be affected by the turmoil with Fox.

It’s important to pay close attention to Trump’s controversial relationship with the news media throughout his participation in the race. All of these feuds have been made extremely public, and the drama surrounding Trump’s campaign is going to play a crucial role in an election that we will all be impacted by. If there’s anything we need to be keeping up with, it’s the news coverage of the 2016 race – and  as we watch these disputes unfold, we will be able to observe, firsthand, the role that the news media play in politics and the impact that it can have.

Can a woman become president?

Posted on by

By ANASTASIA MECHAN

Would Hillary make a good president? Who is her strongest opponent in the presidential race? Can a woman even be a good president?

The elderly and wise say that if a woman manages her own household, well, then she can handle anything in life. Meaning, a woman can definitely make a promising leader. Great examples of successful women leaders are Veronica Bachelet, president of Chile, and Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany. However, the opposite is true in regards to Dilma Rouseff, president of Brazil, and Cristina Kirchner, president of Argentina. Both are facing serious corruption scandals and leave questions.

So, how would Hillary face such problems? Would she be ready to face the comments about her husband’s infidelity during her campaign? How would she deal with terrorism? Would she act cold-blooded and put emotions aside or would she negotiate with terrorists?

Some believe that a woman’s more emotional nature could affect her decision making.

Now, let’s remember. Hillary Clinton ran for presidency once before and there is no doubt that her failures and the experience she gained from them will only help her now. She knows that if she doesn’t win this time, it won’t happen. As a mother and grandmother, she has said that she wishes every child in the country the same possibilities of success her granddaughter will have.

Lastly, Bill Clinton’s presidency worked well not only due to his friendliness and good use of the press, but also because of his wife’s contributions. I am sure many Americans have tons of questions and wonder what it would be like for a woman to run this nation. For now, we can only sit back and wait to see what happens.

“When families are strong, America is strong,” — Hillary Clinton.

Brazil’s media morals — Facts vs. news

Posted on by

By ISABELLA MESQUITA

One of the greatest and most admirable roles of the news media is to unveil the truth and shine light on hidden and misrepresented facts. However, news media and journalists don’t always honor this role.

Many times what we call news is actually a warped story written on behalf of one’s economic, personal and social interests.

Born and raised in Brazil, I have seen this happen daily on television and other media outlets as the country undergoes a severe and aggravating political and economic crisis.

Amidst the rising wave of opposition against Brazil’s current government and its leader Dilma Rousseff, Rede Globo, the country’s main over-the-air broadcasting network, clearly took its side with the opposition.

Last month, Globo’s director Erick Bretas quoted singer Bob Marley, saying “Get up, stand up” on Facebook and Twitter in an attempt to encourage people to be a part of the uprisings in favor of the president’s impeachment.

In addition to that, Globo interrupted its transmission schedule and left almost 100 percent of its reporters on duty in order to bring about a greater attention to the outbreaks – an effort not seen in Globo’s coverage of other events of the same and/or greater magnitude.

Despite my beliefs that Dilma’s government is highly flawed, corrupt and is headed in the wrong direction, the way these events have been covered by the country’s main TV channel, as well as the statements posted on behalf of its staff have clearly shown bias and a lack of professionalism.

As a matter of fact, I do agree that the country is collapsing in Dilma’s hands, however her impeachment and any other uprising should never originate from the media or be manipulated by it.

Regardless of a specific economic, political and social scenario, media outlets should maintain their integrity and honor their role as informants, not opinion-makers.

Drudge Report still ranks No. 1

Posted on by

By S. MOLLY DOMINICK

A recent article from Politico identified the Drudge Report as the “leading source of referral traffic” for many notable news organizations. This means that—other than browser searches and social media, which usually will lead users to news stories through links and shares—the Drudge Report is the No. 1 place where readers go to get routed to news.

First of all, the obvious thing to note is that the Drudge Report is openly conservative. It often crafts its headlines and arranges its content from a conservative perspective. The fact that this conservative news routing site ranks is most used brings up questions about the political demographics of news readers nationwide.

Does this reflect the views of the nation? More likely, it just sheds light on what we guessed already. Those who seek out news the old-fashioned way tend to lean more to the right; those who like their news brought to them (e.g. through apps) tend to lean more to the left.

The Politico article also notes that the Drudge Report has experienced very little change to its Web page over the years, which I found interesting.

When it comes to keeping users engaged, the mentality used by companies usually revolves around updating, upgrading and introducing change to keep things interesting. However, the Drudge Report has been mighty successful in keeping things exactly the way they are.

This might be more of a testament to the audience who most religiously uses the Drudge Report, as previously discussed. But it might also be something for other marketers and newsmakers to keep in mind before making major changes to what they offer. In some situations, consistency may be equated with reliability and could be a more effective strategy in keeping a loyal audience.

Hillary Clinton, star of ‘The Matrix’

Posted on by

By S. MOLLY DOMINICK

When reading online news, I hope to achieve a balance between biases by ingesting left-leaning, right-leaning and politically neutral media (to the best of my ability, of course). One of my primary sources of neutral news is Politico and it usually remains up to snuff.

However, today I ran across this image while reading an article on that site:

Source: politico.com

Source: politico.com

Swimming through a sea of high-tech coding wizardry far above the heads of the measly public, Hillary Clinton scowls toward an unknown opponent, contemplating her sinister past…

That’s what I get from the drama-inducing, Photoshop-doctored photo above. In fact, based on this image, the accompanying story may actually be about Hillary Clinton starring in a new sequel to “The Matrix” rather than about a political scandal concerning her responsibleness as a public official.

I understand that Politico was adding character to its content and being a bit creative here. That’s not a bad thing, although it does invite questions about the appropriateness of this when the following article approaches an issue sensitive enough to potentially harm a public official’s reputation.

I also understand that this photo does not necessarily show a political leaning one way or the other. In fact, my thoughts about the photo shifted from two extremes.

My first impression was that her scowl made her seem mean, or just gave an overall negative vibe, paired with her stark black-and-white contrasted coloring. Plus, she seemed overwhelming by the coding (the scandal) surrounding her. But upon further reflection, this image might convey the exact opposite. Her expression could be a face of tough determination in the face of those opponents attempting to tarnish her name. She is distinctly separate from the coding, after all, appearing boldly in front of it.

The English class-style dissection of this image could continue until we’re as gray as Hillary’s ashy-hued, color-manipulated face.

But all fun aside, including an image like this could possibly cross a line into editorializing (or diminishing) an otherwise serious hard news story, depending on how you look at it—which could be problematic for a famously neutral news source like Politico.

There’s always another side to the story

Posted on by

By CHELSEY SELLARS

As I placed my items on the grocery store conveyor belt, I glanced over at the gum
and magazine rack.

GL10C1A_2015Upon all the fashion and sugary goods, I found a picture of President Obama’s contorted face on the cover of the lovely Globe: In small print next to Obama’s face, once you get past the bright yellow “psychopathic rages” and “egomania” accusations, reads “making crazy faces in healthcare video February 2015.”

Globe is infamous in America for its questionable headlines and material, so naturally I was skeptical about these allegations. I quickly Googled “Obama makes faces” and stumbled upon this quirky video of Obama teaming up with BuzzFeed to remind millenials of the deadline for Obamacare:

The clip is called “Things Everybody Does But Doesn’t Talk About,” which features Obama taking selfies and making bizarre faces in the mirror. I realized that the picture from Globe was the same one as this screenshot of the video. 

As stated before, Globe is notorious for creating tabloids, but what if you did not know that first hand? What if you were in America as a traveler, and happened to see this crazy headline? You might believe it and go on to share the news.

The media are there to inform the public of what is going on beyond their backyard. However, we cannot be sponges and simply absorb the information. I believe that we should always yearn for knowledge and have some skepticism when it comes to media; the more we investigate, the more media literate we will become.

Is media coverage too free?

Posted on by

By NADIA BACCHUS

Although freedom of speech and personal expression are undoubtedly celebrated in the media by the wide range of topics covered, the recent execution of Japanese journalist and ISIS hostage Kenji Goto lead me to wonder whether certain topics should be covered?

The late Kenji Goto was a freelance video journalist who covered topics such as wars and conflicts, poverty, AIDS and child education around the world. Goto was captured by Islamic State militants only a day after entering Syria to try and rescue Japanese hostage Haruna Yukawa, despite being warned not to.

ISIL released a video on Jan. 20 demanding $200 million from the Japanese government for the release of Goto and Yukawa. A few days later, another video was released with Goto holding a photo of the decapitated Yukawa and audio saying they would exchange Goto’s life for the return of Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, a suicide bomber. When ISIL realized the exchange would not happen, a video was released of Goto’s beheading.

In another story of a journalist being held hostage, a New York Times journalist, David Rohde, and two of his associates were kidnapped by the Taliban while in Afghanistan doing research for a book in November 2008. Their kidnappers were quick to make contact with many American news outlets including The New York Times. Their ransom: the release of Taliban prisoners being held in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay and millions of dollars. The men were held captive for seven months before Rohde and Ludin made an escape.

The difference between the stories of Goto and Rohde were how much the media covered their capture. The capture of Goto was widely publicized on international news outlets all the way down to local station across the world. On the other hand, when Rohde was captured, the media barely covered it.

That is not to say one life was more important than the other. Rhode’s capture was not widely publicized because The New York Times requested a media blackout of the abduction in order to maximize Rhode’s chances of survival.

This difference in story coverage could lead to the question of whether it is ethical for journalist to hide a story when it is their obligation to report timely events. I personally think the difference in coverage really just shows the balancing act and difficult choices the media must sometimes make: informing the public or potentially further endangering the life of someone.

Although each hostage case is different and many factors must be taken in account, it is hard not to wonder whether Goto’s story could have ended differently.

Kuwaiti journalists often restricted

Posted on by

By HANYA ALKHAMIS

As my father once said “Where will studying journalism take you? What will your job be, once you graduate?” “Kuwait and the Middle East don’t appreciate journalists the way the West does!”

Being a journalist in Kuwait means including yourself in a narrow tunnel that is suppressed by the government. It is a tunnel surrounded by rules and regulations of do’s and don’ts. One would just have the chance to work in newspaper or magazines since we don’t have a wide range of media genres in my country. This leaves our society to be private and secretive.

Reporting should be part of freedom of speech and expression. Media surround our lives everyday, from listening to the radio to viewing one’s Snapchat. This media outburst weakened the power of breaking news and announcements. Snapchat now can help someone to enjoy news in a different manner. Journalism and broadcasting organizations should also take into consideration these changes and allow news to appear more often onto these popular apps that are constantly used and abused by millions.

From Snapchat to Instagram and to Twitter, one must be up to date with all of these media products to view what people enjoy and take in. Just so, journalism is now revolving around and transforming to become part of these products, new and up to date.

Being brought up into a closed-minded society, journalism, reporting and broadcasting are monitored by the government leaving the people wondering whether what was said was true or false.

Censorship shouldn’t be included in Kuwait’s media and maybe this may change in time, but one shouldn’t be watched and judged for what he or she may have to say. What’s the point of journalism when there’s false news behind the screen? Why does media in Kuwait feel the need to sensor? Is it because to hide the shameful news. Is the media being bias and choosing a side or is it because they the want to not cause any conflicts? Falsely reporting may cause a larger conflict, instead.

I believe people in Kuwait should have the right have to follow up with media and journalism one should have the right to view what is exactly happening at any given event.

Citizens in nations become clueless and naïve due to the rules enforced by the government that control what to say or report. Because of my Islamic country, some issues, such as the “Charlie Hebdo” images, are extremely sensitive and delicate. Insulting and disrespectful, we believe that some journalists and columnists should take into consideration the respect of religion and drawing the line between news and disrespect.

Drawing the lines in journalism may be hard to do since each and every person may have a different opinion of what is right and what is inappropriate and wrong. Media should always take into consideration all the different opinions and beliefs of all the different kinds of people around it. Having to be filtered and clarified; is okay but, it does not mean to leave out what is vital and important.

It is not only about 43 murdered students

Posted on by

By KATHERINE FERNANDES

#YaMeCanse, which basically means “I’m tired of this already,” began trending in Mexico since 43 students were brutally murdered.

Protests in Mexico are all over the news. Mexicans are tired of corruption, crime and violence. It’s not only about what the students lived, it’s about where the country is now headed.

As most of us might heard or read about, 43 student protesters disappeared outside Iguala, a city in the Mexican state of Guerrero, on Sept. 26. The students were kidnapped by the local police and given to the Guerreros Unidos gangs, a criminal organization in Guerrero, to kill them. Not to mention, these were the commands of corrupt Mexican politicians against these innocent students.

So, why the politicians wanted to have these students disappear?

Apparently, the students’ plan was to interrupt Iguala’s annual conference of Maria de los Ángeles Pineda, local president of the organization and the wife of Iguala mayor Jose Luis Abarca. Likewise, students wanted to protest since they were not happy with the government’s favoritism when hiring and funding jobs and practices; students claimed government gave privilege to those students from urban colleges over those from rural institutions.

It turned out that Abarca and his wife sent the “police” to open fire on the students’ vehicles and block them from interrupting Pineda’s talk. Students that remained alive after the shootout were forced into police vehicles and handed over by the same police to the Guerreros Unidos criminals. These gunmen killed them and burned them in a mercilessness way.

Yes, drug cartels are nothing new to Mexico. However, it is unacceptable that the same politicians, who are supposed to be an example to their citizens and fight against these illegitimate drug organizations, are the ones that have close ties with drug cartels and send these criminals to kill citizens that are “an obstruction” for their political speeches.

Even ordinary Mexicans students as these youngsters, who were from poor families and had no ties to the drug trade, were victims of this politicized savagery.

It is clear that public corruption and violence within the politics have gone out of control in this country. If Mexicans don’t confront this problem, the crime organizations will be gaining more and more power, killing Mexicans who oppose to them, installing drug cartel members in political positions and even taking control of the country.

“As Mexicans, we should change our attitudes, we are always complaining but we don’t work to find a solution to this problem that is putting our country in serious risk,” said Odalis Gomez, radio newscaster of the political debate forum for youngsters of QFM 104.3 in Cancun, Mexico.

 

 

Does Japan-China relationship change?

Posted on by

By XUANCHEN FAN

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe met on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit in Beijing on Nov. 10, 2014.

The meeting lasted just 25 minutes. President Xi Jinping of China and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan tried a new beginning; however, the atmosphere is not that optimistic.

Through body language, two leaders seemed a little awkward. Before they were seated, Premier Abe spoke to President Xi. Cameras caught that instead of listening and answering, Xi turned toward the photographers to snap an awkward, less enthusiastic handshake.

“Obviously, Xi did not want to create a warm or courteous atmosphere,” said Kazuhiko Togo, director of the Institute for World Affairs at Kyoto Sangyo University interviewing with The New York Times. “It was a very delicate balancing act for Xi.”

Chinese news media also maintains negative opinion. The news agency Xinhua quoted Xi as saying: “Severe difficulties have emerged in Sino-Japanese relations in recent years, and the rights and wrongs behind them are crystal clear.”

Nonetheless, Abe holds an optimistic opinion.

“Japan and China, we need each other,” Abe told a news conference at the close of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting. “We are in a way inseparably bound together.”

The tension between Japan and China has been existed in recent years. It started with the crisis over the islands. In September 2012, the Japanese government purchase Diaoyu island in China from a private owner.

The Chinese, who claim the islands were wrongfully taken from them by Japan at the end of the 19th century, sent squadrons of paramilitary vessels into the waters around the islands, and Japanese Coast Guard boats fended them off in what became a cat-and-mouse-game.

From World War II to nowadays, Japan and China had conflicts on many issues. Those contradictions are unable to be melted by a 25 minute meeting. In the future, it is possible that two countries can get long with one another.

‘Unseen influences’ taint media

Posted on by

By AUDREY WINKELSAS

Sharyl Attkisson, a former CBS News reporter, alleged her computer was hacked by a government agency for reasons that include an attempt to conceal the causes of the 2012 Benghazi attack.

Attkisson recently discussed “the unseen influences on and manipulation of the images and information the public receives in the media.” She quite her job at CBS News because she did not like the way the network avoided stories it feared would illicit pushback from corporations or politicians. She warned that “unseen and undisclosed paid interests are behind the images.” In essence, “PR officials and propagandists may organize and fan out… to manipulate information and give the impression that there is great support for or opposition to an issue or person,” she explained.

What this means for the public is that content must be digested and contemplated thoroughly. People must become more active readers and think critically to decide whether a story is likely to be reliable.

This places undue burden on the public, since people can’t be experts in every field and since their full-time job is not as an investigative journalist.

The press is fundamental to a healthy democracy. For it to function properly, networks must not be agenda-driven, accept bribery, or be fearful of government or corporate retaliation. As one opinion columnist for The Guardian put it, the media need to stop being a “lapdog” and return to being a “watchdog.” Every appropriate measure must be taken to present accurate, unbiased information to the people it serves, the public.

The cost of delaying immigration reform

Posted on by

By KATHERINE FERNANDES

President Obama’s decision to postpone immigration reform cost some Democrats their seats in the midterm elections.

Democrat’s performance among the Hispanic community was not as good as in previous years.

Certainly, Hispanics are not happy with Obama’s job about the immigration reform. There have been more than enough excuses to postpone this reform and nothing has been done other than deporting undocumented immigrants and separating Hispanic families.

“The ideal candidate for a Latino is one who recognizes the value of family and the importance of not tearing families apart and keeping them strong,” said Maria Teresa Kumar, CEO and president of Voto Latino. “They would be on a platform to pass immigration form and they would see it as the civil rights issue of our time. They would have a frank conversation with America saying we will not be economically viable without the immigrants and their labor and their sweat.”

On the other hand, Republicans improved performance among Latinos in Tuesday’s elections.

President’s decline to act on immigration before midterm elections also made Republicans take control of some “Democratic territories.”

Latinos make up a large portion of the United States and they have a big influence on Election Day.

Clearly, lower Hispanic votes for Democrats affected some Democratic candidates in the midterm elections, including Charlie Crist, who lost his race for governor in Florida.

Incumbent Gov. Rick Scott’s campaign focused on unemployment and tax decreases in Florida, but also criticized Crist as a political opportunist and “supporter of President Barack Obama” and certainly, not many people in Florida like what Obama is doing according to the election results.

Exit polls indicate that the Republicans had more Hispanic votes from 27 percent in 2012 to 35 percent in Tuesday’s elections.

The president’s delayed action on immigration led to Democratic positions losses leaving Obama with a Republican-controlled Senate.

“There could be civil war among Democrats unless Barack Obama uses his authority to suspend deportations of undocumented immigrants,” warned Luis Gutierrez, the U.S Representative for Illinois’s 4th Congressional district.

The NBC News political team speculated: “Given the current situation, we think the White House wishes it went ahead and issued that executive action on immigration back in the summer.”

Tuesday’s results could have been different for Democrats if the president had taken different actions regarding the immigration issues.