Trump defends penis size

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.

And now, h-e-r-e’s Donnie!

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.

News media fuel Trump’s campaign fire

By BREANA ROSS

Donald Trump’s campaign for president started out as a mere joke to some, but not for him. People laughed and took a shot at guessing how long it would be until the radical billionaire would drop out of the election. It was even a joke to the news media, which made it a point to cover Donald Trump’s latest offensive comment or outlandish statement every single week.

Whether it was negative publicity or not, Donald Trump was getting publicity. Publicity that would seem to have discouraged voters from supporting Trump actually helped to build his popularity. Now here we are, just days after Super Tuesday, and it appears as though Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president of the United States.

From name-calling to false accusations, Donald Trump made his way into the news media spotlight right from the beginning of the campaign. At the beginning, it was his comment calling Mexicans “rapists” that sent the news media into an uproar. Then it was his statements on his plans to require Muslim-Americans to register with a government database and carry around identification cards that brought him to the center of media attention.

While the Trump’s constant news media coverage seemed to just point out his extreme views and that he was unfit to be president, it actually helped him in the long run. Trump was getting attention and publicity that no other Republican candidate was receiving. When you turned on your television to a news station, chances are Trump was the first face you saw.

The news media actually helped increase Trump’s popularity by covering him so much.

Now, as the campaign gets down to the wire, the news media have switched their approach with coverage of Trump. The news media are starting to portray Trump as a true presidential contender and focus more on the Republican Party’s plan to stop Trump from getting the nomination. Information about Republican senators’ ideas on how to stop Trump from getting the nomination are starting to surface. It is becoming a reality that Trump could actually be the Republican nominee.

In retrospect, Donald Trump’s case shows how crucial the news media are when it comes to swaying the public. When the news media constantly cover someone, it forces people to pay attention to them and form an opinion about them. Donald Trump’s case is also a prime example of the popular phrase, “No publicity is bad publicity.”

Carson sees ‘no path forward’ in race

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.

Designers support Clinton at NYFW

By SIDNEY STERLING

As the iconic New York Fashion Week (NYFW) came to a close on the 19th, style gurus, designers and models were buzzing about something other than the latest haute couture.

Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 10.46.57 PM

Big name designers like Marc Jacobs, Tory Burch and Maxwell Osborne and Dao-Yi Chow of Public School revealed campaign shirts in support of democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on and off the runways of NYFW.

These shirts are a key part of Clinton’s “Made for History” project and all of the profits go directly to her presidential campaign.

The goal of “Made for History” is to include more upscale merchandise to Clinton’s online store, provide an additional way for supporters to express themselves and help gain traction for Clinton’s campaign.

Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 10.47.27 PM

Each designer was reportedly given free rein for their personal designs and all three t-shirts are priced at $45 and can be purchased on hillaryclinton.com.

After seeing the shirts all over NYFW, celebrities are sharing their comments about the designs on social media.

Kendall Jenner posed in her Marc Jacobs deigned Hillary shirt and posted on her Instagram saying, “Shirt by @themarcjacobs. History by @hillaryclinton. #MadeforHistory #ImWithHer @voguemagazine.”

The New York Times thought the campaign idea was “brilliant” and stated, “Fashion Week is not normally the first event that comes to mind when one thinks of the perfect time to hold a political fund-raiser.”

Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 10.47.35 PM

However other fashion blogs like Digiday are criticizing Clinton for an “elitist” move.

Adam Wray, the curator of Fashion ReDef newsletter, told Digiday, “My main issue with the t-shirts is simply that they’re ugly and in addition to other millennial-pandering items like the “Chillary Clinton” beer koozie, is not going to help her flagging standing among young people.”

Like it or hate it, people are still talking about Clinton’s latest fashion statement (no, not a different color pantsuit) and chatter creates momentum for political campaigns, which is the ultimate goal.

Your privacy or your security?

By JEAN-PAUL AGUIRRE

If you have been keeping up with the news lately, you might have heard about the dispute between Apple and the federal government.

In short, the federal government is requesting Apple’s assistance in unlocking the iPhone of a San Bernardino attacker for information vital to its investigation. The reason the government requires Apple’s assistance is because the phone has a lock out function that will prohibit anyone from opening the phone after 10 failed attempts. In order to attain the information, the government is asking Apple to create a “master code” that will allow them to override the lock out function of any phone they choose.

Apple sees this as a massive privacy rights violation for their customers and has opted to deny the government’s request.

The media runs this story more and more as new information comes out, or when a public figure releases their statement about the situation and what they think either side should do.

Additionally, the recent vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court, after Justice Scalia’s death, could be contributing to the story’s frequent airing.

There may be a good chance of this case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court if the two cannot reach a settlement. With the Court at a stalemate in regards to party affiliation, as well as the obstruction in the appointment of another justice, there is no telling which side would prevail if it reaches that point.

This situation has more significance than some people realize. This case could further protect the individual’s privacy, or it can provide the government with another tool for collecting intelligence and improving national security.

This story is not about a dispute between two prominent figures, but rather the implications of their dispute and the drastic repercussions that will follow. The media are trying to distinguish its gravity, as opposed to other stories. For that reason, the story is being covered appropriately.

Conspiracies arise after Scalia death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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.

So what happened to MDC?

By ANASTASIA MECHAN

At the end of last month, Miami’s Dade Medical College closed the doors of its six campuses that ran from South Florida all the way to Jacksonville, leaving thousands of students with anger and questions. However, the only answers that were given to students was that the school was struggling financially and with the poor performance of the students on the certification exams. Really?

Management of the college stated: “Today it is with great sadness that I must announce that Dade Medical College and the University of Southernmost Florida will be closing effective October 30, 2015, across all of our campuses and our corporate offices.

“So my friends, I want to thank each and every one of you for believing in us every time we may have faltered and for being a part of this journey.” (Source: MSNBC).

So what do the students do now? How do they get their transcripts? What is DMC or the Department of Education doing now? Did everyone forget about the students who threw time, money and dreams away?

Well, on Thursday a town hall-style meeting was held at Shenandoah Middle School in Miami to give answers to the students regarding their education and their future. However, according to The Miami Herald report, it seems like the students left with more questions and no hope.

But first, let’s talk about why did it close in the first place? Well, according to an investigation conducted by The Herald, it was revealed how DMC was using political connections to fuel its growth through for-profit strategies.

Ernesto Perez, the owner and a high school drop out, was the very own guilty person behind this horrendous business. He pleaded guilty Monday for making illegal campaign contributions. The contributions won’t hurt his pocket and reputation, but have damaged many students’ dreams because, unfortunately, Dade Medical College doesn’t fulfill all academic requirements to transfer to other universities.

‘Baby Hitler’ goes viral on social media

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

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.