China’s Xi Jinping visits America

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Chinese President Xi Jinping landed in the United States on Sept. 22. During the first two days of events in Seattle, Xi first visited the Boeing manufacturing complex, then greeted the governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, and a group of governors from Western states. He also attended U.S.-China Internet Industry Forum that was co-initiated by Microsoft and Chinese Internet Association.

We can infer from the events that they were designed to demonstrate a firm relationship with American business.

The New York Times commented on Xi’s Seattle stay: “in a broad sense it has worked as a show of force to President Obama about the power that China wields, and how much American companies need China even if its policies do not align with Washington’s.”

Nevertheless, frustration is simmering here. A survey conducted in 2010 asking U.S.-China Business Council members’ opinions of business outlook in China. Fifty-eight percent delivered positive feedback, confirming business in China would thrive and support U.S-China business cooperation and 33 percent were somewhat optimistic, compared with 24 percent who were positive while 67 percent maintain somewhat optimistic or neutral in 2015.

Xi is going to stay in the U.S. for a couple of more days and is expected to visit the White House on Sept. 24, to meet with President Obama and attend a State dinner.

Interesting enough, China itself analyzed Xi’s visit quite differently from outside perspectives.

From the Western news media’s accounts, Xi’s visit is expected to address several issues including cyber espionage. The U.S has claimed that China was responsible for cyber theft of U.S. confidential data and 5.6 million federal employee’s fingerprints, that China has inconsistent protection of intellectual property. China’s staggering stock market and contested waters in South China Sea are also expected to be discussed.

Fiorina will damage women’s rights

By MADELEINE TRTAN

On Wednesday, the second GOP Debate took place at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, enhanced her image and campaign during the debate. Fiorina attacked Planned Parenthood on many occasions, she said that defunding Planned Parenthood should be a priority. Her reasons were grossly inaccurate. She described a falsification of events that took place in the videos that have recently been publicized. Fiorina’s graphic words were false. What actually took place in the videos was edited for dramatic effect.

Fiorina has fought for gender diversity in the workplace for most of her career, she claims to advocate for women’s rights and further our nation in gender equality. However, one of her tactics would ultimately hurt women.

Defunding Planned Parenthood would take away women’s rights to free sex education, free contraceptives and free-to-low cost medical attention. Planned Parenthood’s business is primarily built on women’s health, contraceptives and sex education, not solely abortions.

Women across the country use Planned Parenthood as their primary source of female healthcare, defunding it would leave many women in the dark. There is no such thing as getting rid of abortion, defunding Planned Parenthood would only get rid of safe abortions. The wire hanger is something women should never have to experience again.

Can a woman become president?

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.

3,200 rescuers diagnosed with cancer

By XIAO LYU

Nick Schiralli barely escaped death 14 years ago because he was late for work that day. Astoundingly, 14 years later, the 68-year-old is suffering from a disease after inhaling 9/11 fumes.

The latest official data show that more than 3,200 cops, firefighters and New York City workers have been diagnosed with cancer. The number is still rising and the residents are excluded from this number. After the disaster, it still hasn’t stopped taking away innocent lives.

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after 9/11 took place, President George W. Bush and the New York government were eager to prove that they had not been overtaken by the terrorists. They issued a notice to the public that everything was under control and would return to normal soon. In order to appease and persuade the public, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Safety and Health Commission and the other departments endorsed “the air is safe to breathe; the water is safe to drink.”

Questioning usually comes after the rescuing. But after the 9/11 attacks, the American media and public opinion, who ordinarily criticize the government, became silent. A large number of television programs promoted the dedication and patriotism of the government, police, and the military, and rarely had a questioning voice.

Juan Gonzalez was the famous senior reporter, who dared to challenge the authority, but his questioning did not get much response. The environmental protection departments published data showing the air was “ within the security metrics” to stop criticism, but then people became affected and the public began to question: What is that irritating smell in the air? What is the substance that makes the fire continue to burn? Are there any toxic substances? However, the data released by the US government was still showing a safe and clear air quality and in order to prevent more questions from the press, the Environmental Protection Agency held an undisclosed press conference.

9/11 has always been a sensitive topic, but the fact is, the number of victims are still rising. In recent years, most of the mainstream media began to report the related issues and to pressure the government: the government should give an impartial explanation to the heroes and the victims of  9/11.

China puts military on display for media

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Sept. 3, Beijing’s Tiananmen Square was the spotlight of a lavish parade to commemorate Japan’s defeat in World War II 70 years ago.

There was no shortage of firepower on display, including upgraded machinery and previously unseen missiles. China’s growing military power is being keenly watched amid regional tensions. Unexpectedly, President Xi Jinping made an announcement in the beginning of the display that China would cut 300,000 troops from the 2.3 million-strong People’s Liberation Army.

This announcement went top on Chinese most popular searching engines. Chinese state-run newspaper invited analysts to explore more on this message President Xi delivered, and so did some western media who also asked think tanks to analyze what the action will actually bring about.

Personally, I think the cutting troops is a way to showcase that China’s determination of peaceful development though cutting troops is not necessarily translated into cutting military expenses. Especially in this high-tech era, military power has nothing to do with the total amount of soldiers. It is how advanced that technology applied to weaponry matters. Nevertheless, the announcement impressed the public that, at least, China is willing to be a peaceful developing country, rather than a threatening country purposely wage conflicts.

Besides, I think the message to cut troops can be treated as a signal to neighboring countries that keep having frictions with China over the last a few years. China always have several territory issues with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam. Sometimes the tension between China and these countries gets intense, even on the verge of war. The military parade indicated Chinese military power, and at the same time, troops’ cutting information showed that China has no intention to resort to wars to solve problems. The military parade and the troops’ cutting announcement combined, conveys an attitude that concessive in form, but aggressive in essence. That is, China owns the capability of solving problems depending on military power, but it voluntarily refuses to do that.

Drudge Report still ranks No. 1

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’

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.

It is not only about 43 murdered students

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.

 

 

Media focus on Putin, China’s First Lady

By XUANCHEN FAN

At an APEC event in Beijing on Monday night, Russian President Vladimir Putin put a shawl over the shoulders of Peng Liyuan, wife of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Peng Liyuan kindly accepted the offer, but seconds later she slipped the shawl off into the hands of a waiting aide.

The small act aroused media’s attention and put Chinese First Lady in the news again.

Since Peng Liyuan’s first debut as China’s First Lady in March, 2013, she grabbed the world’s attention and media began to notice her and her clothes.

Peng Liyuan sang at Chinese New Year Gala.

Peng Liyuan sang at the Chinese New Year Gala.

Peng Liyuan is China’s most enduring pop-folk icon and performing artist. She gained popularity as a singer from her regular appearances on the annual CCTV New Year’s Gala (a widely viewed Chinese television program during Chinese New Year).

She holds a master’s degree in traditional ethnic music and now serves as the dean of the Art Academy of the People’s Liberation Army. She holds the rank of a major general.

When it was announced that Xi Jinping would become China’s next president, people even joked: “Who is Xi Jinping? He is Peng Liyuan’s husband.”

At Peng’s international debut as China’s First Lady, she wore a belted overcoat, accented by a stand-up collar and a light blue scarf in Moscow. Smiling radiantly, she shook hands with the Russian hosts, a step or two behind her husband.

The glamorous and fashionable look leaves a good impression. Chinese analysts even think that Peng can similarly help burnish China’s image overseas.

“Because of her performer’s background and presence, I think she will definitely add points for her husband,” said Tian Yimiao, an associate professor at the Shanghai Conservatory of Music. “It could make her into a diplomatic idol.”

It seems that Peng’s star power will push the diplomats into the background. The only one concern is that she might unintentionally upstage Chinese president.

Does Japan-China relationship change?

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.

The cost of delaying immigration reform

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.

Military move to deter news media

By MEAGHAN MCCLURE

According to the recorded telephone calls obtained by the Associated Press, Ferguson, Mo. police officials admitted the no-fly zone was put in effect to dissuade the news media from covering the Mike Brown protests.

Originally, police claimed the order was for the safety of the city. Now, word has come out that it was actually intended to prevent news helicopters from covering the protests that have been shadowing Ferguson.

The protests have been a hot topic in the news media for a while. It has been four months since the shooting of Michael Brown and news is still coming out about the issue in the news media.

Constantly, the news media have been scrutinized for the way they have handled the situation, but this new discovery could take some heat off the media.

If the law enforcement had issued the no-fly zone to purely restrict media coverage, it is an undeniable violation of the rights we are guaranteed under the First Amendment.

So far, government officials haven’t responded to these allegations, but the clear violation of basic constitutional rights, denied by the people who are trying to protect us, is clearly very troubling.

Media battle through cartoons

By MEAGHAN MCCLURE

On Sept. 23, India successfully launched its first Mars mission. Shortly after, The New York Times ran a political cartoon mocking the country that can be construed as racist.

The caricature depicts an Indian man, leading a cow, into a building marked “Elite Space Club,” which is full of white men in suits.

The Times soon experienced relentless backlash, to which they took to Facebook to publicly apologize.

The best part of this story is how the Indian media handled this offense.

They did not come back with a retort right away, no. They waited for the perfect opportunity to passive aggressively mock the U.S. back, which conveniently came in the form of a failed space mission.

On Oct. 28, an unmanned rocket – resulting in no injuries or deaths – exploded during liftoff. This proved perfect ammunition for the Indian media comeback.

Following the accident, the Hindustan Times ran a cartoon depicting an Indian couple observing the explosion, exclaiming, “It’s not rocket science for us!” The explosion took place in the “Elite Space Club.”

This little correspondence between two country’s newspapers is entertaining, and something most readers would never pick up on. I commend the Hindustan Times for approaching the situation in more of a light-hearted manner than most media outlets would take. They accepted the offense and acknowledged it in humor, all while creating an interesting story to look at from a media perspective.

You can take a look at both of the cartoons here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/hayesbrown/an-indian-newspaper-just-had-the-perfect-comeback-to-a-racis.

Networks ignore midterm elections?

By GABRIELLA CANAL

Early Saturday morning at a local school, I bubbled in my choices, signed my name and slipped my voting ballot into the scanner. Early voting in Florida had begun and, with elections less than a week away and much talk about Republicans yielding political gains, I truly have not seen much news media coverage on a midterm election of such political importance.

This year’s midterm elections, as opposed to 2006’s highly covered one, has not had much presence in any of the three big networks: ABC, NBC and CBS. Around 23 million viewers tune into these networks as their source of information, trumping almost all other networks. America’s media watchdog, Media Research Center, found that the “Big Three” aired a combined 159 campaign stories during the 2006 election and have only aired a meager 25 this year.

“Amazingly, since Sept. 1 ABC’s newly-renamed World News Tonight has yet to feature a single mention of this year’s campaign, let alone a full story. In contrast, eight years ago ABC’sWorld News aired 36 stories that discussed that year’s midterm campaign, including a weekly Thursday night feature that then-anchor Charlie Gibson promised would look at the ‘critical races,’” said Drennen and Noyes — two journalists covering this strange media blackout.

Instead, news of troubles overseas and social crises have taken the limelight. Albeit, these issues of Ebola outbreaks, ISIL’s movements, and Ferguson’s latest outcries are all pressing and of major concern to the American audience, the midterm election deserves its fair share of coverage.

Additionally, Drennen and Noyes found that “eight years ago, there was no escaping the negative news for Republicans. Not only were polls projecting a major swing to the Democrats, but a scandal involving Florida Representative Mark Foley received major attention from all three network evening newscasts. Of the 159 network evening news stories that fall, nearly two-thirds (103, or 65 percent) conveyed either mainly bad news about Republican candidates, or mainly good news about the Democrats, vs. just seven (4 percent) conveying the opposite message.”

This issue started out looking like another case of poor media prioritizing but is actually beginning to show all of the symptoms of media bias. Let’s look at the obvious: the networks are giving little air time to the bad political news for the Democrats this midterm election. In 2006, when the Democratic party had the upper hand, that was all that the news tickers read. One would think networks of such prestige and power would uphold even the most simple of journalistic standards. Rather, one would expect that.

But who is truly at the source of this issue: The networks, the advertisers that support the networks or the six corporate conglomerates that own the majority of mass media outlets in the U.S. (Disney, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.)? Most importantly, will this trend continue in the coming years after the results are in?

To read more about this media black out, follow the link: http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/tv-news-blacks-out-years-bad-election-news-democrats.

A look at the Hong Kong protesters

By XUANCHEN FAN

Since Oct. 1, Hong Kong Protesters have been gathered for a rally. Apparently, democratic Hong Kong is not pleased with the current political situation. All of this has gained international and global news media attention.

So, these days, many people have asked me about my opinion toward Hong Kong. And people want to learn what is really going on in Hong Kong.

In my opinion, the citizens in Hong Kong are a little excessive on the political issue. As a financial center in Asia, Hong Kong is abundant and the environment is quite comfortable for living. For students, the University of Hong Kong is one of the best colleges around Asia.

Many Hong Kong residents maintain that Chinese government is not fair to them. The Chinese government in Beijing has overseen Hong Kong since 1997. For example, Disney World originally was planned for Shanghai. However, in an effort to promote Hong Kong’s economic development, it was built in Hong Kong instead. Shanghai is only now, 17 years later, getting its own Disney park.

Some economists even calculated that if the government used the money which develop Hong Kong to develop the north of China, the north of China would be as advanced as Shanghai nowadays.

Taking a parallel comparison with Macao, another special administrative region of China, Macao was impoverished at the beginning of 21st century. Few people in Macao were capable to use telephone back that time. Nonetheless, they focused on development and constructions for Macao’s economy.

Even though the Chinese government never did anything special for Macao, people never heard that Macao residents were dissatisfied with government policies. Now, Macao is the “Asian Las Vegas” and succeeding by its own efforts.

Standing with a citizen’s point of view, Hong Kong residents should be satisfied with the current situation and use their vigor for something meaningful instead of rallies on the streets.

Breaking down our misperceptions

By GABRIELLA CANAL

With an iPad in one hand and a microphone in the other, Joy-Ann Reid stood on stage in front of a hundred or few gawking faces. She had been invited to speak in one of my classes unbeknownst to us. Her show on MSNBC covers, analyzes and interprets the timeliest topics of our day, or as she phrased it: the “hot-button issues.”

One of these issues (and the topic she delved into) being immigration and how it is dealt with policy-wise. Reid extensively covered the stories on the thousands of unaccompanied children appearing at the border. And, to her surprise, she noted, the American audience grew angrier even in response to the videos the media showed of buses taking these children to safe houses. They actually became more anti-immigration.

This had me thinking: Does the way that the media portrays or covers immigration affect the way American citizens react towards the topic?

If there is one thing I have learned about journalism, it is that keywords in a story can produce a certain feel or desired outcome. And as I scroll down the current events revolving around immigration, I notice that the stories tend to leave out the immigrant himself — focusing heavily on policy or reform. I understand that the journalist intends to simply report the news without bias, but when there are so many misperceptions that shroud the debate, I feel the journalist is obligated to clear the air first.

Reid listed the six main misperceptions for us. The first is that all undocumented immigrants are Latinos. A poll taken in 2012 recorded thatone-third of Americans thought this to be true. Eighty percent come from all over Latin America, not just Mexico. A total of 63 percent of Latinos are U.S. born and, although 16.9 percent of the population is made up of Latinos, they only make up 10 percent of voters.

Many believe that most immigrants are in the country undocumented. Many also believe that most people who come in illegally are border-hopping when the truth of the matter is that 45 percent of the immigrants actually come in legally and simply do not return to their home countries.

One of the biggest misperceptions is that immigrants are taking American jobs. The majority of these immigrants have no other options for them besides low-paid, agricultural jobs. Now I ask: where and who are the Americans competing for these jobs? When Alabama cracked down on immigration law in 2011 with HB 56, the state actually had to relax the law because unharvested crops were dying — Americans weren’t leaping at these new job opportunities.

Another big misperception is that there is a big correlation between immigrants and crime when, in fact, since 1994 immigration has doubled in numbers and crime has dropped. The final misperception is that the immigrants are not paying taxes. ⅓ of them pay tax, including sales tax. They are actually pumping $7 billion into the Social Security system that they will never get back.

So before the media go off publishing an army of headlines about “What has become of immigration reform?” and “Illegal immigrants flood the border,” should the media consider the possibility that it may play a grand role in breaking down the misperceptions of the immigration debate?

These efforts would not be in an attempt to persuade or sway the American public, but instead to inform them — the essence of reporting.

Journalism and social media’s influence

By AUTUMN ROBERTSON

This September has been a great news month for many journalists. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has captured more towns and oil fields in Syria and President Barack Obama has made an executive decision to soon deploy troops into the area to fight ISIS. The Ebola outbreak in West Africa continues to spread and the president made executive decision after the ISIS news to deploy troops to the area to “fight” the disease.

However, I heard more about certain news stories than others and I can’t help to think that the result was from social media. I saw more articles and think pieces on both NFL stars Ray Rice, who was accused of domestic violence, and Adrian Peterson, who is facing child abuse charges, than any of the executive decisions that President Barack Obama made and many other political policy news.

Is it because they monitor what people are talking about on social media and chase the more dramatic, sensationalist stories in order to sell papers and get page clicks?

The “trending meter” on Twitter and Facebook are important tools for a journalist. They can see what people are talking about from a regional, national and worldwide standpoint. I sat and monitored what people were talking about on twitter these past two weeks, and I saw more tweets about the athletes than tweets about politics.

Why is it that generally we are more concerned about scandals than issues that can directly affect our nation? Because we are more concerned about these shocking events, stories about national government issues are being flooded out by the journalists who write about those shocking events. I am not saying that the Rice and Peterson stories lack importance; personally, I am glad that the stories were reported because each lead to powerful discussions about domestic violence and abuse. However, more and more people know every detail about those stories, but lack proper knowledge on ISIS and the affect they have on our country. Is social media more of a clutch for journalists than a useful tool?

Social media play an important impact on journalism and what news the media feel is more important to cover. However, should journalists be so influenced by the people that use social media that they choose to write stories based on what’s trending?