Tag Archives: Politics

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,

The bathroom bill problem

Posted on by

By ROBYN SHAPIRO

The Senate of South Dakota has recently voted to approve a “bathroom bill.” The bathroom bill states that students would have to use the bathroom based on their “chromosomes and autonomy” at birth, rather than what they identify with now. This bill not only attacks the LGBT community, but also completely discriminates against transgender students.

State representative Fred Deutsch, who was in favor of the bill, stated this is necessary in order to protect the “bodily privacy rights” of “biologic boys and girls” and that if transgender students were uncomfortable with this, they could use private accommodations. He refused to do a follow-up interview with Time magazine on this statement.

Time provided a first-hand example of how this law could effect transgender students when they interviewed Rebecca Dodds, the mother of a transgender boy who had recently graduated high school in South Dakota.

Her son stated that the idea of using the girl’s rest room was so uncomfortable for him, he would avoid using the bathroom the entire day. Because of this, he contracted multiple urine infections and had other health-related issues throughout his high school career.

The identity struggle for transgender students is a difficult enough issue that having a law to further isolate them from normalcy would only contribute to their existing insecurities. While conservative America considers the sensitivity of the standardized “norm”, liberal America considers the sensitivity of all.

I believe Time magazine did an excellent job providing a non-biased, yet informative, opinion on this current issue. They provided opinions from both the pro and con sides, while further examining how this law would affect transgender people and the LGBT community outside of the school system.

While much of our American population is socially conservation, our younger generations are growing be more and more liberal. The media needs to continue to report these issues with sensitivity and compassion as our society progresses into acceptance.

Too little, too late for radiation

Posted on by

By JEAN-PAUL AGUIRRE

On Thursday afternoon, Feb. 18, 2016, as CNN was covering the Republican Presidential Town Hall, news broke that highly radioactive materials in Iraq had been stolen.

Reports have gone on to say that the device, which uses the radioactive material, Iridium-192, was reported stolen from an oil services company back in November.

Iridium-192 has a half-life of about 74 days, which means that by now the material has all ready decayed by half. Analysts on news stations are clarifying that these types of situations happen more frequently than they are reported on the news. Also, they believe it is highly unlikely that the material would be used in a terrorist attack and if it were used in a “dirty bomb,” it is likely that the explosion from the bomb would cause more harm than the Iridium-192.

What I am concerned about is why this news is being reported now? If the Iridium was stolen from an oil company in Iraq, in November, why should we care?

From what the online reports and analysts are leading onto, the repercussions of this incident alone will not be severe, yet they mention the possibility of radioactive materials being the next step in chemical warfare due to the availability of such materials around the world and the rising number of cases of stolen materials.

It seems to me that this news was reported too late. Now the nation is focused on the South Carolina primaries, an incident of stolen radioactive materials from November is not as important. I believe the mindset audiences have now is “Nothing has happened yet, so why should we care.”

If the news media were to have made this a bigger issue when it happened— instead of three months later— it would have garnered more attention and certainly would have been a talking point at the debates we have seen in the past months.

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.

Beyonce gets political at Super Bowl 50

Posted on by

By VICTORIA DE CARDENAS

The Denver Broncos beat the Carolina Panthers Sunday night at Super Bowl 50, but many are talking about the halftime performance.

The halftime show began with Coldplay and an array of fireworks, streamers, flags and a stadium full of color. Fans held up signs that read “Believe in love.” Coldplay was then joined by Bruno Mars who performed his big hit from 2015, “Uptown Funk.”

Beyonce joined in and that is all anyone is remembering from the halftime show.

Beyonce was accompanied by 30 back-up dancers and flames blowing with every line in her new single “Formation.” But her special effects were not what people were talking about.

Beyonce’s dancers were dressed eerily similar to the Black Panthers, with berets and afros. While “Queen B” wore a Michael Jackson inspired outfit. The outfits alone caused controversy.

The star released the music video of “Formation” the day before the big game. The video referenced the “Black Lives Matter” movement with police officers and a young black boy wearing a hoodie and “stop shooting us” on a written on a wall behind him.

Beyonce’s political statement during the Super Bowl shocked many people, including former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani.

“I think it was outrageous,” Giuliani said. “This is football, not Hollywood and I thought it was really outrageous that she used it as a platform to attack police officers who are the people who protect her and protect us, and keep us alive.”

Others had opposing views.

Black Lives Matter activist Erika Totten said Beyonce’s message accomplished exactly what the movement is supposed to do.

But why are news outlets bursting at the seams with Beyonce’s call for equality? Could it be because she never engaged in political discussion before?

Most media outlets seem to have forgotten that Coldplay was the headliner and Beyonce and Bruno Mars were guests. Coldplay clearly made a reference to gay rights with the bright rainbow colors on stage and in the stands. Why don’t I see journalists over-analyzing Coldplay’s contribution to recognizing gay rights? It was their halftime show anyways.

Screen Shot 2016-02-12 at 12.10.56 AMScreen Shot 2016-02-12 at 12.10.34 AMScreen Shot 2016-02-12 at 12.09.11 AMCould the news media be scrutinizing Beyonce’s performance because she’s black? If that is the case, Beyonce’s message should have be heard and seen by all. It is unfair that a celebrity of her status is being put under the microscope by the media because she addressed the racially charged issues in America.

Screen Shot 2016-02-12 at 12.08.47 AMArticles all over the Internet are criticizing her performance and her contribution to bring attention to the social injustices. Instead of trying to inform and unite the public, the media does the exact opposite.

Beyonce has found her voice and speaking out through her music, but she’s not the only one to do it. I hope to see news outlets acknowledge other celebrities who are trying to draw attention to social issues as much as they did for Beyonce.

Giuliani criticizes halftime show

Posted on by

By JEAN-PAUL AGUIRRE

This past Monday, Rudy Giuliani stirred up some controversy over the Super Bowl halftime performance by Coldplay, which featured Bruno Mars and Beyoncé.

The portion of the performance by Beyoncé referenced ongoing social issues being confronted in the U.S., such as the Black Lives Matter movement, while also celebrating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Black Panthers.

The performance proved to be quite divisive as both proponents and opponents advocated their positions on the various platforms, from online-opinion articles to morning shows on national news networks.

The former mayor of New York, Giuliani, expressed his deep offense by Beyoncé’s performance on “Fox and Friends” on Monday morning. He said that it was “outrageous” and that it was an attack on law enforcement.

The story has not made major waves in the form of newsworthy topics on local or national news stations. I feel that it is appropriate that news stations have not blown the story up to extreme proportions, as they have been known to do recently. I feel that it may be worth mentioning as a tidbit during segments, but the nation should not concern itself with an insignificant feud.

The nation is immersed in the presidential campaign, especially now with the presidential primaries and caucuses in New Hampshire and other states. Following the campaign to try and figure out which of the candidates might take the lead in the race for the White House is more important.

This is one instance where I feel the media took the right approach with covering the Beyoncé-Giuliani story. It contains the news element of prominence, which would permit it to receive some attention, but not enough to allot more time than is necessary — like what we have seen lately with some stories, such as the woman who pulled over the police officer, or if you watch ESPN, the ongoing saga with the Cleveland Browns and Johnny Manziel.

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.

Water crisis hits Flint residents

Posted on by

By BREANA ROSS

Much like Ferguson and Baltimore, Flint was a city plagued with crime and challenges that was forgotten by its own nation until tragedy struck and lives were lost or endangered.

This time, however, lives were not lost at the hand of a law enforcement officer exerting illegal force. Lives were lost at the hand of the State of Michigan, which failed to meet a basic need of its residents: clean and safe water.

This week, in the latest in a long series of developments in the story, news reports are saying Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration knew of potential links between the Flint water problems and Legionnaires’ disease.

Two years ago, city officials decided to switch Flint’s source of water from the Detroit River to a new system that would not be ready for use for two years. In the meantime, the government decided to use the water from the Flint River as the city’s source. The highly corrosive river water transported by the city’s lead pipes produced contaminated water in the homes of Flint residents. Although tests proved otherwise, the city and state governments assured residents that the water was safe and drinkable.

Now, two years later, residents of Flint have fallen ill. Flint’s water issue has gone from local media coverage to national and even international coverage.

The media coverage of Flint focuses mainly on what went wrong and images of the water itself rather than on resolutions of the problem. Many of the news stories on Flint show visual footage of the toxic, brown water coming from resident’s tap. They also explain the failures of the state and local government that lead to such a catastrophe. Residents tell of the unwanted changes in their lives.

While these are very important components to the story, I think the more important question is how this problem will be solved. Although the media have shown large donations of bottled water going to Flint, that is only a short-term fix. The media should focus more on when and how the lead pipes carrying the water will be replaced and how the work will be funded.

There should be more of a focus on how the problem will be fixed in the long run so that a crisis like this never happens again.

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.

Outrage for the rest of the world?

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

Last week, late Friday night, reports of terrorist attacks in France killing more than 100 people. Every local, national and international news network covered the story from the moment the attacks happened and every update that has taken place since then.

It seemed as though all of my Facebook friends changed their profile pictures with the semi-transparent overlay of the French flag. Almost four million people, gathered to march in support of France. Several world leaders flew to France to show their support and speak on the issue and express their nation’s solidarity with France.

Support for France and the outcry against the attacks was expressed worldwide via social media, news coverage, and public marches. Many people raised the question: Where is the outcry for the attacks in Nigeria? Where is the support for the people of Syria? Where is the outcry for Lebanon?

In Nigeria, it is believed that Boko Haram orchestrated a terrorist attack killing 32 people and injuring more. Thousands of Syrians are fleeing from their own country in fear of ISIS. In Lebanon, 40 people were killed and left more than 200 wounded victims of bombs at the hands of ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqYomFMhoq0

Where are the flags for these countries on people’s Facebook profile photos? Where is the international outcry for the victims of these attacks?

People on social media have called out several Western news networks for the biased coverage of terrorist attacks happening all around the world. In response to the claims presented on social media, CNN responded during a segment of their morning show “New Day.”

Michaela Pereira, a “New Day” co-host, raised the question if the West should be doing more to fight Boko Haram. One of the show’s guest speaker, James Marks (a military analyst and executive dean of the University of Phoenix), stated that the reason the West isn’t doing more or showing support to countries such as Nigeria or Lebanon is simply because, “they are not a priority.”

Marks also stated that, “The United States, unilaterally, could do anything it needed to do to root out Boko Haram. It would be a long-term effort, but it could be done. The U.S. has the capability…but it is not a priority—that’s the problem.

Marks went on to say, “‘Black’ West Africa is not a priority. If we were to see Boko Haram appear in ‘White Africa’, which is North Africa, we would be alarmed.”

But is the mass coverage of Paris in comparison to other countries simply a race issue? The Washington Post thinks so, but they also think several other factors are a part of the issue as indicated in their recent article, “This is why the Paris attacks have gotten more news coverage than other terrorist attacks.”

The Washington Post lists the following reasons contributing to why the attacks in Paris received mass coverage as opposed to other terrorist attacks.

  1. France is an unusual target.
  2. Paris is a top global tourist destination
  3. Random civilians were targeted using shocking tactics
  4. Are we seeing a new battleground for the Islamic State?
  5. This was a complex, coordinated attack. And that’s worrisome.

The Washington Post wrote, “The Paris attack shocked the world for many reasons. It’s true that terrorism in less-developed countries is worth our attention as well. Crises, such as the Syrian civil war, deserve much more media coverage and policy focus.”

To conclude, I agree with The Washington Post. There are several other reasons that contributed to the mass media coverage that the Paris attacks received, other than race and urbanization. However, I do believe that because France is not a Third World country, they received more coverage. The prioritization of what is considered to be news to the West is problematic, because one could conclude that the amount of coverage a nation receives indicates their level of importance and whether or not they, and their lives, matter.

‘Baby Hitler’ goes viral on social media

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

Reuters reported on Tuesday that Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said if he had the opportunity to kill Adolf Hitler when the German autocrat was an infant, he would. The White House later tweeted the article featuring his answer with a comment, “Gotta do it.”

In an interview with the Huffington Post series that covers the campaign trail with the candidates running for president, this former Florida governor’s responded “Hell yeah, I would!” to the question: if given the opportunity, would you go back in time to kill baby Adolf Hitler?

“The problem with going back in history and doing that, as we know from the series — what’s the name of the Michael Fox movies? It could have a dangerous effect on everything else. But I’d do it, Hitler,”said Bush.

This odd question was picked via the e-mail address that Bush distributes widely to public audiences, and in fact, it had already become a controversial question when The New York Times Magazine ran a poll over the weekend last month asking readers if they would go back in time and kill baby Hitler. The result showed that 42 percent of respondents said they would, 30 percent said they would not and the left respondents were not sure about it.

The response on social media to Bush’s comments and The New York Times Magazine went viral. Most of them were comical, but it is still a sensitive question involved an adult kill an infant. Therefore, on Wednesday, when Ben Carson was asked the similar question, but there was a slight difference. The question was whether or not he would “abort” a baby Hitler and he responded that he was not in favor of aborting anybody.

In that case, whatever the respond to that question is, it will lead a new roar on the internet.

FAU students support guns on campus

Posted on by

By CHARLOTTE MACKINNON

I read a brief story on the NBC6 Miami website this morning that spiked a concern that has been resonating with American citizens for a long time, especially this past year. It relates back to the age-old issue of this nation’s gun laws.

Just last month, nine people were killed in a shooting at an Oregon community college. That incident was just one out of many tragic school shootings that have occurred in this country in the past decades, and it brought more attention to an already controversial issue.

This morning, I read that a bill is making its way through Florida state legislature that could legalize the carrying of guns on the campuses of public colleges. It is currently against the law, but the bill recently passed a Senate committee. I was shocked to see that Florida Atlantic University students are actually pushing in support of the bill, especially in the aftermath of the Oregon shooting.

Evidently, the mindset of those who are in support of legalizing the carrying of firearms is aligned with the idea that it will not impact the likelihood of another school shooting. Some students were saying that all the law would do is allow students who already have a concealed carry permit outside of campus to legally carry their guns on campus – and if one were to act violently with their weapons, it would happen regardless of the legality of the situation.

What I don’t understand is why it is necessary to have a firearm on campus in the first place. I do agree that the legality of having a gun on campus wouldn’t alone be a motivating cause for a school shooting – such incidents are completely and utterly senseless, and they occur regardless of what state legislature says.

My concern here can be reduced to one word: access. Having firearms present on a place like a college campus – in classroom buildings, dormitories, or fraternity and sorority houses – adds an immediate element of danger to the environment. We all know how easily things can be stolen or fall into the wrong hands and a college campus is a high-pressure environment. As unfortunate as it is, it’s not rare to see many students at any university struggle with mental health issues or develop violent behavior for whatever reason, and it can never be predicted what any one person is capable of.

Obviously, if a killer is set on shooting students or others on campus for whatever sick reason, they will find a way to make it happen regardless of whether or not guns may already be present on campus. I just think that it is completely unnecessary to approve a law that really has no benefits, yet has the potential to be extremely lethal.

Especially after the shooting in Oregon this year, and the shooting at FSU last year where three were shot, I find it absurd that students are pushing in favor of this law. I try not to be close-minded to anything, but I must say at this point in time I have a very firm position against the possibility of this bill being passed.

Behind the ice-breaker meeting

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou shook hands ahead of an historic summit in Singapore last weekend. It is the first time since the Chinese Civil War ended and the nations split in 1949 that leaders from both sides have met.

Xi said the meeting “has opened a historic chapter in the cross-Strait relations, and history will remember today.” He also emphasized, “We (China and Taiwan) are one family.”

Relations between China and Taiwan have improved under Ma since he took office in 2008, with better economic ties, improving tourism links and a trade pack signed.

It is unfathomable why the meeting has taken place at this moment. From Ma’s side, there is a presidential election in Taiwan in January. Ma might take this meeting as an opportunity to give a boost to his party’s candidate, who is trailing in the polls. Also Ma built his presidency on his closer connection to China, so it is a good chance for him to meet Xi.

On Xi’s side, first, Xi wants to exert more of his political control over Taiwan. If he showed his favor in a certain party, in this case, the Nationalists, it might influence many Taiwanese voters’ decisions. If a Nationalists is elected as the upcoming president in Taiwan, it will maintain the policy of being close to China, which will be the ideal outcome for China.

We cannot foresee whether Xi’s meeting with Ma will boost the Nationalists or backfire. During the meeting, many Taiwanese protesters threw stones at the Taiwanese Parliament to demonstrate their anger on Ma’s intention of building a closer connection with China.

Interestingly enough, in Ma’s welcome address, he expressed his sincere hope for continually building peaceful and friendly relation between the strait.  Neither side put fingers on serious political conflicts and territory disputes. They both referred the other side as “sir” rather than his political titles. It is the first time ever in Chinese political reporting that no political titles were involved.

An arduous Korea-Japan summit

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

South Korea President Park Geun-hye and Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held the first high-level meeting in Seoul on Monday. The meeting was postponed for more than three years because of historical issues and territorial disputes between two nations.

Before this one-and-one-half hours meeting were the months of diplomatic negotiations. However, they produced no breakthrough. South Korean KBS reported that Korea-Japan summit mainly discussed the issue of so-called comfort women — tens of thousands of Korean and other Asian women sent to work at front-line brothels for Japan’s World War II military. Park asked Japan to give a sincerely apologize and compensate the comfort women before they left the world, while Abe claimed that all the problems from Japan’s often brutal colonization of Korea from 1910 to 1945 have been resolved in Treaty on Basic Relations Between Korean and Japan in 1965.

According to the Japanese reports, Abe told Japanese reporters that he agreed to try to find an “early solution” to the subject of comfort women. He said he did not want to “leave an obstacle for the future generations in building” relations with South Korea.

The news has triggered uproar among the social media in Japan and Korean. One of the interesting topics is the summit didn’t prepare a luncheon for Abe, so Abe and the Japanese ambassador went to eat barbecue in Seoul themselves.

Sankei Shimbun reports that, according to the shop, Abe ordered Korean beef tenderloin and spiced pork. The lunch also lasted one and a half hours and Abe finished all of his meal. Many Japanese netizens expressed their dissatisfaction with Park Geun-hye. They criticized Park Geun-hye, saying the leader had no common sense.

The meeting was a chance for both Park and Abe to save face, but both were in an awkward position. It is still unknown if the two countries can possibly reach a final agreement.

‘Offend America Again’ Trump on SNL

Posted on by

By ELAYNA PAULK

NBC is currently under fire for being the hosting network for “Saturday Night Live,” which has recently agreed to allow Donald Trump to be its most recent special guest.

Protesters argue that it is the values of Donald Trump that make his appearance on a comedy show “not funny” and “blatantly disrespectful”. American Actor, John Leguizamo has gone as far as boycotting the show and says that if Trump Hosts then “I won’t watch SNL anymore”.

“I’m all for freedom of speech, don’t get me wrong. I believe in freedom of speech,” Leguizamo said in a Yahoo News interview. “This is different … If he had said those things about any other ethnic group, he would not be on that SNL.”

Leguizamo continued, “I mean for him to go around saying that Mexican people are coming across the border are murders and rapists and all the horrible things he said is so dangerous,” Leguizamo said in the interview. “People have been hurt because of his words, because he incited. And he said, ‘well, my followers are very passionate,’ which is also his lack of sympathy and empathy is ridiculous.”

Media outlets such as ABC, Entertainment Weekly, Business Insider, and CNN Money have since reported the incident by remaining neutral. The issue remains though, if we keep using Donald Trump for comedic entertainment, can we trust him as a politician?

Carson: Fact-checking or dirt digging?

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

Despite Ben Carson’s quiet and often soft-spoken demeanor, according to his book “Gifted Hands,” he had a troubled and violent childhood growing up in the city of Detroit.

Recently several news organizations, including CNN, have begun “digging up dirt” on the Republican candidate, with Carson’s claim of a rough childhood at the center of the coverage.

As candidates are running for the highest and most powerful position in the United States and perhaps the world, it is expected that old skeletons will be hunted down and taken out of the candidates’ closets. But is there a point of going too far?

Despite Carson’s public claims of his troubled childhood, as well as those mentioned in his book, CNN has assigned a journalist to investigate Carson’s claims and has reached out to past neighbors and childhood friends of Carson in the hopes of either validating or invalidating Carson’s story.

Carson has often spoken about a particular incident during his childhood in which he tried to stab a friend with a knife over a disagreement about a radio.  The journalist assigned to investigate Carson’s story has been researching the candidate in regards to his claims for the past month and CNN has asked Carson to aid the network in finding witnesses who saw the stabbing attempt as well as the victim of the attack.

Carson has declined to provide CNN with these names and for some news reporters Carson’s unwillingness to help raises further suspicion of whether or not his claims of his childhood are true. Perhaps Carson is not willing to provide the names of witnesses or the victim of his attack, not to hide the truth, but to protect the lives and privacy of those involved.

Every candidate running for president has had their lives turned upside down and scrutinized from what they wear to what they wrote in their high school newspaper 30 years ago. I think Carson is making the right decision not to provide CNN with the names of witnesses or the victim to protect them from the harsh and often unforgiving spotlight of public opinion and news media.

Carson is not alone when it comes to news networks “digging up dirt” and publicly scrutinizing his past. Recently, several news organizations, in addition to Donald Trump, have called out Marco Rubio for his personal use of a credit card that was only to be used for political purposes relating to the Republican Party. CNN has went as far as to list out the date, location, and exact dollar amounts used for personal use.

I do think that this information is pertinent for the American public to be aware of as it pertains to Rubio’s misuse of a professionally provided credit card. However, as illustrated with Ben Carson, I do think that sometimes the media can cross the line between fact-checking and digging for dirt.

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.

Joe Biden and CBS’ ’60 Minutes’

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

Vice President Joe Biden made an announcement last week that he will not seek the 2016 nomination of the Democratic Party for president. Although it ended the subject about whether he will step back or not, the speculation of the reason came as follow.

On Sunday, Vice President Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, appeared on CBS “60 Minutes,” telling about the reason he decided not to seek the nomination: the impact of the loss of his son, Beau, and his views on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

The vice president said in the interview that he knew he couldn’t win because he thought he and his staff couldn’t put together the campaign that their supporters deserved and contributors deserved. He also explained the reason — “the single most important thing in deciding not to run” is the loss of his son, Beau. The loss overturned the schedules.

Beau Biden supported Joe Biden to run for the president and thought he could win, while Maureen Dowd in The New York Times wrote about it and described Beau on his death bed said to his father, ”Dad, you’ve got to run.” This description was proved false in the interview.

Biden also discussed his comments reported by The New York Times last week that he didn’t mean to aim at Hillary Clinton herself and that they are friends.

“Go back and find anybody who says, for the four years we worked together, Hillary and I weren’t friends,” Biden said.

Moreover, Biden addressed his disappointment with Donald Trump directly and called him a showman. He wanted Trump to reconsider his remarks on immigrants.

CNN, NBC, The New York Times and many mainstream media covered this interview and they put particular emphasis on a different aspect of the story. CNN mostly covered “no Hollywood Moment” and the headline from NBC referred to Biden’s comment that he couldn’t win. The New York Times, which was mentioned twice in the interview, tells more about his family concerns. However, none of them made a comment about Biden’s disappointment with Trump.

Lego versus Ai Weiwei

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Artist Ai Weiwei accused Lego of “censorship and discrimination” because the latter refused to sell its bricks to him because his new artistic work may convey a political statement.

According to Ai, Lego rejected Ai’s bulk order of bricks, saying that its bricks could not be used for any artworks that may of “any political, religious, racist, obscene or defaming statements.”

In response to Lego’s refusal, many fans and artists demonstrate their supports for Ai. Many of them donated their bricks to Ai, hoping that their donations could adding the amount of bricks to the degree that Ai can accomplish his Melbourne show. Some people also expressed their opinions on their social website such as Instagram or Twitter. One used Lego’s toy bricks to spell out the word “I support Ai Weiwei” and added a cutline that “we won’t be buying anymore.”

Ai wrote on his Instagram that “Lego will tell us what to do, or not to do. That is awesome!” to make an irony here because Lego has a slogan “everything is awesome”.

Ai was an artist known for his fierce criticism of Chinese government. Last year, Ai used Lego bricks in his art show at the former Alcatraz prison, near San Francisco, to create portraits of 175 dissidents who had been jailed or exiled, from Nelson Mandela to Edward Snowden. He intended to hold a similar art display in Melbourne.

Ai has changed the theme of his upcoming artistic show to defend freedom of speech and “political art,” due to Lego’s rejection of selling its bricks.

From where I stand, I consider that Lego’s behavior is for the sake of its future cooperation with the Chinese government. Lego plans to build a new Legoland in Shanghai. For Lego, building a theme park is apparently more profitable than selling bricks to an artist. Given that Chinese government is not welcoming Ai, Lego would absolutely not offend and annoy its future cooperator, Chinese government, by selling Ai bricks and indirectly assist Ai to demonstrate unpleasant arts to Chinese government.

Essentially, it is another story about people who stand on the tip pyramid of money and power win the game, or rather, make the rule.