Tag Archives: Politics

Post takes stab at Kardashian initiative

Posted on by

By CAROLINA PEREZ

Kim Kardashian made her way to the Oval Office this Wednesday to meet with President Trump in order to discuss prison reform and sentencing. Many people applauded the reality star’s political initiative.

While meeting Trump, Kardashian spoke for 63-year-old Alice Marie Johnson who was sentenced to prison with no parole for a first-time drug offense.

Johnson has served 20 years in prison. Kardashian tweeted, “It is our hope that the President will grant clemency to Ms. Alice Marie Johnson.”

While some believe that Kardashian is using her platform to make a positive impact, others see this as a PR hoax.

The biggest critic overall happened to be the New York Post, which mocked Kardashian as “Kim Thong Un” and referred to the meeting as a “Big Ass Summit” on the front page. Journalists and reporters had a lot to say about the cover. CNN’s Don Lemon defended the reality star and described the paper’s cover as “appalling” and “sexist.”

Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty added, “Can we just stand back for a moment and acknowledge the sexism of this headline? @KimKardashian is far from the first celebrity to understand the power of using her spotlight to call attention to a serious issue.”

To publish such a mean spirited cover against someone who was just trying to advocate for criminal justice reform seems highly inefficient. We should support citizen participation within our democracy.

The news media are turning political activism into a joke enabling others to back away from it because of possible criticism.

I was happy to see other journalists chime in to support Kardashian. Although coverage like this diminishes the value of good journalism, the outcome of political discourse and conversation, especially between young adults, outweighs the negative impact. It’s important for people to see this and talk about why it’s wrong. Publications like this also help the public distinguish good sources of news from bad.

Enquirer accused of covering for Trump

Posted on by

By PATRICIA SANTANA

Popular celebrity magazine The National Enquirer is being accused of buying and burying stories that portray President Trump in an unfavorable light. This practice is known as “catch and kill.” It’s thought that David Pecker, publisher of the Enquirer and longtime friend of Trump, has been doing this as a favor to the president.

All the purchased stories relate to allegations of Trump having affairs.

According to the Washington Post, the source allegedly paid off by the National Enquirer is a former Trump Tower doorman, Dino Sajudin, who told the Enquirer that Trump had a child outside of wedlock and that top executives of the Trump Organization were aware. Sajudin claims to have been paid $30,000 for the exclusive rights to the story but the Enquirer never published it.

As reported by CNN, another source coming forward is Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model. McDougal was paid $150,000 for her account of an affair with Trump that lasted nine months. Allegedly, the deal included an agreement that McDougal would publish regular columns on aging and fitness in the Enquirer. McDougal’s story was never run, and only a small portion of the agreed-to columns were published. American Media Inc. claims that McDougal did not write the columns.

Trump has denied all allegations of cheating.

Of all the news outlets that I read from to learn more about this story, I found the one with the most comprehensive coverage of this story was CNN. CNN’s homepage had more stories on this scandal than the Miami Herald, The Washington Post and The New York Times. On the Herald’s homepage, there was not a single story on the scandal to be found today. I found this surprising because it’s a story of national relevance. In the case of the Times, I had to scroll to find a link to the story.

I think this speaks to how desensitized news outlets are becoming to the latest Trump scandals and also how difficult it is to report on a Trump scandal when there are so many happening all the time.

The CNN coverage took many angles. There was an article reporting on the “catch and kill” practice and on Pecker and another article reporting on the different sources paid off by the Enquirer. CNN also published a poll on what Americans think of the Enquirer’s coverage of Trump. The website also had a video uploaded with reporters discussing the story. I found this to be very comprehensive coverage, and I feel that I learned the most from CNN.

The coverage by the New York Times focused more on the investigation into the Enquirer and its possible ties to the Trump campaign. The investigation is sparking a First Amendment debate and it is looking into whether any campaign laws were violated.

If it’s true that the Enquirer is engaging in this “catch and kill” practice as a favor to Trump, I think that’s a very troubling ethical issue. Journalism is supposed to speak truth to power, not facilitate its lies.

Raid of lawyer’s office and its coverage

Posted on by

By GRACE SMITH

On Monday, Michael Cohen’s offices were raided by FBI officials. Cohen, who is President Trump’s lawyer, was investigated in relations to deals the lawyer may have made to keep women affiliated with Trump quiet about their past relationships.

This unexpected and largely shocking raid was triggered by Stormy Daniel’s accusations she was paid off to keep quiet about her sexual relationship with trump, who was married during the alleged affair, as well as the now infamous “Access Hollywood” tape where Trump makes vulgar comments about women and how he could “do just anything to them” and they would let him.

The warrant, which was issued early Monday, includes everything from financial documents to explore possible payoffs to emails, which would reveal communications between Cohen and President Trump, especially during the period in which Trump cautiously referenced his extramarital encounters.

The coverage of this event is not lacking, for several reasons. First of all, the tension and controversial surrounding President Trump’s affiliates and possible crimes has been bubbling since he entered office. With the rising concern over Russian interference as well as Facebook and Cambridge Analytics bombshells, all eyes have been on the White House to not only see how they react but also how they handle the mounting issues.

Because the raid on an lawyer’s office is so rare, the story with its basic facts is gaining a lot of attention, so news outlets do not feel the need to embellish or add extra details to make it seem more scandalous, though many sites do include links to previous stories that cover Stormy Daniels and the “Access Hollywood” tape mentioned above. The issue with coverage here, to me, is not how much is being covered or if it is being covered truthfully (I believe many, if not all reliable outlets are doing an excellent job with bringing people the true facts) but rather who is covering it.

Fox News as long been recognized as a very conservative, extreme right channel. Their coverage of events differs greatly from others in how it is treated and highlighted. They may cover the March for Our Lives just as accurately as CNN or MSNBC, but follow their facts-based news blurb with an hour of talking heads speaking negatively about the cause, the kids, and/or gun control. We seem some backlash to this, as in the Laura Ingraham case, but overall it just seems to be an extra bit added onto people’s personally sculpted echo-chambers.

However, as far as the FBI’s raise on Cohen, the popular conservative news outlet has been almost silent. There are several tweets circulating all over Twitter showing how almost all major news stations are covering the raid while a screenshot of Fox News sits below with an anchor covering panda’s sex drives.

Vox, an alternative, internet-based news outlet, underlined this in an article “Why Fox News limited coverage of the raid of Trump’s lawyer’s office” alongside several line graphs.

The graphics show how MSNBC and CNN devoted slightly over twenty percent of their airtime to the raid, while Fox News barely jumped above seven percent. The amounts become slightly more even when Fox covered Trump’s rant against the raid.

When it did cover the raid, the coverage was focused on a deeper lying conspiracy against the president and his allies, often called “deep state” by extreme right-wing supporters, instead of why the raid was even happening. It is a mindset that is convinced bureaucrats are controlling the news and elections to try to shame and ridicule conservatives, and it is the rhetoric that Fox News, most notable Sean Hannity, uses to justify Trump’s controversial staffing decisions and anything negative that happens against Trump.

In the end, Fox News as long been a haven for hardcore Trump supporters and they know their base will block out a majority of negative news and commentary about their president. But this is where the journalistic decision between maintaining and audience and covering what is relevant and important comes into play and I believe Fox made the wrong choice.

Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

Posted on by

By ABBY LLOYD

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, testified before Congress today for the first time at Capitol Hill to answer lawmakers questions about the data hack.

Zuckerberg said he takes full responsibility for what has recently happened with the data hack. As soon as he entered the room, he told Senate, “I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.”

The data hack was started by an American researcher, Aleksandr Kogan, who gathered information from basic profile information of Facebook users. People are very upset because Kogan lied and said that he was “gathering research” but then violated company’s policies by passing the data to Cambridge Analytica.

According to Fortune, this type of data is used to target voters with hyper-specific appeals on Facebook and then that try to change their opinions. Cambridge Analytica is a site that uses “data to change audience behavior.” Basically, data is being leaked about people’s political views on Facebook.

It uses such data to target voters with hyper-specific appeals, including on Facebook and other online services, that go well beyond traditional messaging based on party affiliation alone. This is known as “psychographic” targeting or modeling.

“Here are a few things that we are doing to address this and to prevent it from happening again. First, we’re getting to the bottom of exactly what Cambridge Analytica did and telling everyone affected. Second, to make sure no other app developers out there are misusing data, we’re investigating every app and to prevent this from going forward, we’re making sure they can’t access as much information now.” Zuckerberg, 33.

This has been covered by almost every large news broadcast network, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, and more.

Trump, Obama not attending wedding

Posted on by

By KRISTIAN DEL ROSARIO

British royal weddings are usually grand affairs of state. It is a place where presidents and prime ministers rub shoulders with obscure European monarchs. But for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle it will not be the case.

Kensington Palace announced on Tuesday that the royal couple will not be inviting political leaders to the event. This means that President Trump and predecessor Barack Obama will not be there.

British Prime Minister Theresa May was not even worthy of an invitation. Only personal friends of the couple were included on the list as well as a number of ordinary British citizens.

A spokesman for Kensington Palace said, “It has been decided that an official list of political leaders both UK and international is not required for Prince Harry and Ms. Markles wedding. Her Majesty’s Government was consulted on this decision, which was taken by the royal household.”

First Lady Melanie was also not invited, which was confirmed by a White House official.

Unlike the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in 2011, this royal wedding is not an official state occasion. It is being regarded as a private ceremony.

This ceremony will take place in St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, which is a much smaller venue than Westminster Abbey where Harry’s older brother Prince William married Kate Middleton.

This was covered in a very informative matter. Not many people know how royal weddings work so it makes people understand what the guest list is normally composed of.

Scott announces run for U.S. Senate

Posted on by

By AMANDA TORRES

Florida Gov. Rick Scott finally announced that he is running for the U.S. Senate on Monday morning at an Orlando rally. His announcement was much anticipated, as Florida residents had speculated that he would run for the U.S. Senate for months.

CNN posted the video of his announcement and it can be found here. The governor will be running against Democrat Bill Nelson, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000.

CNN and the Miami Herald pointed out in their news stories that the governor stated there should be limits for members of Congress and that voters should be cautious in sending the same politicians to Washington if nothing has changed in the previous years. Although not directly stated, his comments were probably aimed at Nelson.

This race could be a test of the popularity of President Trump. The governor has been a supporter of the president since the beginning. If the governor is not elected, this could express the public’s disliking towards the president and the Republican party.

Based on the video where the governor made the announcement, he did not mention the president directly, but his speech had the same ideologies as those of the president. According to the Miami Herald, he used the words “fix,” “tired old thinking” and “we gotta stop sending talkers to Washington.”

The governor also stated that he did not engage in “insider games” in Tallahassee and won’t in Washington either. He stated that he hasn’t fit in before and probably won’t fit into Washington, much like the president. The governor said that people should vote for a doer and not a talker.

CNN, The New York Times, the Miami Herald and many more news organizations have stated that this will be one of the most expensive races in history and both Scott and Nelson could have close votes in the results of the Senate election.

Florida governor to run for Senate

Posted on by

By ANDREA ILLAN

Florida Gov.  Rick Scott, officially announced on Monday that he would run for one of the U.S. Senate seats to represent Florida. The Miami Herald reported on the matter and commented on Scott’s upcoming campaign as well as his politics during his time as governor.

The announcement took place at an Orlando rally filled with supporters of the politician. In making the announcement, he also criticized current senator and his opponent, Bill Nelson. The article reports Scott said that “We shouldn’t be sending the same type of people to Washington.”

Additionally, the article comments on what is to come for the two candidates by making note on how expensive the race will be and how close it will be in the end.

Regardless of political views this Senate race will be important and memorable for the state of Florida.

Nelson has the experience, as he has held the seat for three consecutive years. He represents tradition, so this is why he might remain attractive to voters. However, if voters seek someone new to represent Florida in a conventionally Republican way, they will most likely gravitate towards Scott.

The announcement also leaves Floridians thinking about the possibility of a new governor for the state. And if this becomes a reality, it also raises the question of who the next person to fulfill this seat could be.

The article on the Miami Herald can be found at http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article208323384.html

Teachers stand fast, protests continue

Posted on by

By GRACE SMITH

Oklahoma’s teacher walkout in protest of poor state funding of schools started yesterday and shows no sign of slowing down. The teachers, after forming a walkout yesterday that shut down area schools, have now collected in the Oklahoma State Capital and their chanting echoed up and down the rotunda of the building.

The teachers have an allotted budget to travel to the Capitol on school buses for 10 days in protest. They started by presenting a three-pronged demand list to the state that demanded they fill in a $50 million gap left by a repealed hotel tax, allow “ball and dice” gambling to increase state revenue and, most importantly, find additional ways to fund public schools.

Efforts by state Democrats to increase state revenue to about $75 million, which would be directed to the schools, have been blocked and the House of Representatives announced it would be adjourned until the end of Wednesday in interest of the representative’s safety. Many teachers expressed anger over the lack of action, insisting that “there were options on the table, now they just had to hammer the legislators.” The teachers, however, have announced they are in it for the long run.

Despite traditional news media coverage of protest slanting to make them seem violent or unjustified, especially when preformed by minorities, the treatment of the teacher walkout in Oklahoma carries a sort of justice-empowered respect around it. Outlets are careful to detail both sides, including efforts by legislators to propose and pass helpful changes, but it is overwhelmingly in favor of the teachers. However, this is not a shock. The general opinion about teachers is very positive, with the (correct) idea that they work very hard and very diligently for very little.

The public is also very invested in this story as local Oklahoma parents seek the best for their children, and an end to the sudden “vacation” their walkout gave to students. It also has a broader reach- long has the United States education system, especially public schools, been viewed as underfunded, under-supported, and overstretched. This is perhaps a catalyst for the rest of the nation’s teachers to demand better, which may (hopefully) resolve in a complete overhaul of our public school systems.

Donald Trump Jr. wears controversial pin

Posted on by

By ANDREA ILLAN

Most of the American public will remember when then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton referred to a portion of President Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” during the 2016 presidential race.

More than one year after this happened, the incident is neither talked about nor mentioned in the news anymore. Trump Jr’s outfit choice on Easter changed this.

Rather than the traditional American flag pin that politicians and political figures wear to these sorts of events, the president’s eldest son chose to wear a golden pin of the American flag with the word “deplorable” over it.

None of the main news sources have commented on the issue but online magazines Esquire and The Root both published brief content on the matter.

Esquire’s take was one of comedy towards the matter. The article ridicules Trump Jr. by referring to his choice to do this as “profoundly stupid,” “dumb” and “unfit for the situation.” On the other hand, The Root’s article takes an angrier approach and comments on the situation with profane language.

Both analyses of Trump’s choice are mostly superficial and miss the real problem with the president’s son wearing a pin that says “deplorable” on it.

By choosing to do this, Trump Jr. adds to the image of immaturity that has been linked with the public image of his father. Further, it raises questions about the motive behind the action. Was it meant to be a joke? Or did he wear it as a reminder of the 2016 victory to President Trump’s adversaries? Was he referring to himself as a “deplorable” individual?

Only Donald Trump Jr. can answer these questions. Regardless, this behavior is should not be acceptable for the presidential family and should have been picked up by more mainstream news outlets.

Both online articles can be found at https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a19665174/donald-trump-jr-deplorable-pin/ and https://www.theroot.com/donald-trump-jr-wore-a-deplorable-lapel-pin-because-he-1824274742

Mandated scripts air on Sinclair stations

Posted on by

By SOPHIA CONSTANTINO

A video released this weekend by news sports site and blog Deadspin is circulating news media outlets nationwide. The video exposes the nation’s largest local television station owner, Sinclair Broadcast Group, in its controversial underhanded support of President Trump and his “fake news” dialogue.

Opening of Deadpan expository video (Photo courtesy of Deadspin sports news and blog)

In just under two minutes, the video pieces together identical quotes from news stations across the country, all warning viewers to be mindful of “fake news.”

The video itself is unsettling to say the least; news anchors are shown delivering formulaic lines in unison, first stating the particular station’s dedication to serving their respective area, followed by a shared sentiment of pride in the profession of journalism.

The video goes on to show clips of similar formulaic statements, all expressing that they are “concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country,” according to The Concourse. As clips of anchors multiply and their voices echo perfectly scripted lines concerning “truth” and “factual reporting,” the video ends in a rhythmic chant of the anchors stating, “This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”

Brian Stelter reported for CNN earlier in March on the company mandate, sharing in the article the script with which a local news station owned by Sinclair was provided. One anonymous anchor stated, “At my station, everyone was uncomfortable doing it.” Similarly, American news website Thinkprocess shared a transcription of the script based on news station KOMO out of Seattle, wherein the basic formula is broken down.

The news media are near bursting with anchors stating their discomfort in berating their own chosen profession, as well as being required to boast biased dialogue. Many outlets turn focus instead to Sinclair’s move to acquire another 40 television stations, thereby increasing its political influence.

The Deadspin video alone has exceptional reach, having been shared tirelessly over social media outlets, primarily Twitter and Facebook, and HBO’s “Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver.

Unsurprisingly, the exposure has sparked massive disgust and contempt for slimy media politics in general and the now-questionable ethics of Sinclair Broadcast Group. And, unsurprisingly, President Trump has taken to Twitter to share his thoughts on the matter;

“So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke,” the president wrote.

If nothing else, the video has managed to shock and alert the general public to the immeasurable power of mass media.

Fox News show host mocks student

Posted on by

By PATRICIA SANTANA

Fox News weeknight host Laura Ingraham is embroiled in a controversy after mocking Parkland student activist David Hogg’s college rejections.

Ingraham retweeted an article posted by right-wing website The Daily Wire with the headline “Gun Rights Provocateur David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied.”

“David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it,” Ingraham commented in her retweet. “Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA…totally predictable given acceptance rates.”

Soon after, Hogg took to Twitter to ask his followers to ask companies who advertise during Ingraham’s show to pull their ads. Many of these companies, such as Hulu and TripAdvisor, have already listened to the public outcry and are now boycotting Ingraham’s show.

Ingraham has since apologized on Twitter for her comments. Hogg has not accepted her apology, stating that “an apology in an effort to save your advertisers is not enough” and that he will only accept the apology if Ingraham denounces the way Fox News has treated the student activists from Parkland.

Most of the drama in this story played out on Twitter. Ingraham’s initial comments and apology, Hogg’s responses and calls to boycott, and some companies’ statements of pulling their support were all tweets.

As a result, most news organizations have embedded many of the tweets in their coverage of the story. I found that the more tweets a news organization embedded, the more engaging I found the article.

For example, The Washington Post included the most tweets out of any of the articles I read, and I found that that was the article I enjoyed most. Being able to see the exact tweets allowed me to see the article Ingraham retweeted and click on it, making the story more interactive. It also made for a visually appealing article since the embedded tweets broke up the blocks of text.

Other outlets, such as The New York Times and CNN, included only one tweet. I found that decision puzzling given how much of the story played out on Twitter and it made the stories a duller read.

I also found that embedding the tweets made the articles flow better, since tweets can be very awkward to quote due to their conversational nature and usage of links and hashtags.

Kimmel exposes Trump’s hypocrisy

Posted on by

By GRACE SMITH

Popular night time show host Jimmy Kimmel announced he planned to file a federal complaint against the Trump family’s new Trump Store.

A screen capture from Jimmy Kimmel’s show clip on YouTube where he presents the box and letter from the Trump Store.

The talk show host of has been vocal about calling out the Trump administration’s policy issues and controversial political decisions.

On the latest episode of his show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” questioned Trump’s “Buy American!” rhetoric.

It has been a phrase the president has pushed since the beginning of the election and most recently reiterated while moving for high foreign tariffs.

Kimmel expressed agreement with the idea of supporting American businesses and manufacturers, and also stated that Trump’s sons, who run the brand new online Trump Store, seemed to hold the belief t even stronger than he did.

As a test, he ordered several items from their merchandise site and found that all of them were made in China, though several left out the country of origin. Kimmel stated that an omission of such could bring around half a million dollars in fines and he has already filed a federal complaint against the store.

Though he expressed this as a honest move to fix a possible oversight, the action will surely bring to light the two-sided nature of Trump’s words.

One of the items from the online store, a coin bank, with no marked country of origin.

But the most interesting part of this story is not the federal complaint placed but the way Kimmel laid out and physically showed the lack of American-made products from the Trump Store. I

n a way very unique to television he was able to open a box from the legitimate store and show the inscriptions, embroidery and tags (or lack of) describing the Chinese, Peruvian, or Taiwanese origin of the products. He ordered everything from a golf club cover to a baby’s bib and did a simplistically wonderful way of showing the range of places these items came from.

John Oliver, host of “Last Week with John Oliver,” often directly presents reports, interviews and documents while exposing politicians.

In an age where the public has become less and less trusting of news and entertainment media and gravitates toward sensationalized stories, flashy headlines and personal echo chambers, the earnest and straight-forward way Kimmel presented the physical evidence can not be denied by even the most staunch Trump supporter.

Many late-night talk shows have begun to take this approach when it comes to politics and cite specific phrases from government guidelines and show actual documents of fraud, theft or deceit.

It seems in an age of appeal over quality, this is the only way to keep people from blindly believing whatever Twitter headline they come across next. No one can deny cold, hard presentation like that.

U.S. bans purchase of Venezuelan Petro

Posted on by

By ANDREA ILLAN

On March 8, the Florida Senate took action to ban the state from engaging in business with companies supporting the regime in Venezuela and U.S restrictions with the Venezuelan economy continue.

President Donald Trump took recent action to prohibit the purchase of new Venezuelan cryptocurrency called the Petro. This new medium of exchange was created by President Nicolas Maduro as an attempt to fix the country’s weak economy at the moment and the increasing inflation rate, an article on Bloomberg explained.

The executive order was signed on March 19 and prohibits U.S citizens from buying this cryptocurrency.

While Bloomberg gives a brief description of the situation, an article on CNN Money further explains what this means for both countries.

According to CNN, Trump’s recent action follows his previous ban of U.S investors from buying bonds issued by the Venezuelan government or state-run companies, such as the leading oil company in the country, PDVSA.

Maduro stated the currency will be backed by oil, the primary resource in the country. This does not mean, however, that investors would have ownership of this resource.

Additionally, Maduro stated on a tweet that the Petro’s private auction raised $735 million. But CNN reports this amount has not been confirmed.

This executive order is a significant action for the Trump administration, as it actively recognizes the illegitimacy of the Venezuelan government.

Both articles can be found at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/trump-prohibits-u-s-purchases-of-venezuelan-cryptocurrency and http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/news/economy/trump-bans-venezuela-cryptocurrency-petro/index.html

Shalala running for Congress

Posted on by

By PATRICIA SANTANA

On March 7, former UM president Donna Shalala announced her candidacy as representative of Florida’s 27th Congressional district.

Shalala is one of many contenders vying for the vacancy created by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s retirement. Shalala is running as a Democrat. Her platform includes issues such as LGBTQ rights and environmental conservation.

The Miami Hurricane did an excellent job of covering this story.

On Feb. 14, they published a speculative piece discussing the rumors that Shalala would run for Congress. This article displayed a commitment to the story and indicates that they were on top of any developments long before Shalala filed for candidacy.

There are also a number of corrections on the bottom of the article dated Feb. 16. These corrections show their transparency, since they could’ve made the corrections and not announced it in order to not risk a negative perception of their mistakes. They also could have avoided any corrections and hoped nobody would notice, which would have been very lazy reporting.

The Miami Hurricane’s Facebook page was very prompt in posting Shalala’s announcement on March 7. The timestamp on their “Breaking News” post was 10:39 a.m. The next post on their page was of a complete article on Shalala’s announcement, posted at 11:08 a.m. This gap of about half an hour shows how quick they were to produce a complete article in order to provide readers the full story in a timely manner.

In comparison, The Miami Herald’s Facebook page did not post about Shalala’s announcement until 1 o’clock in the afternoon. Granted, The Herald has many other stories they need to be covering and Shalala is a campus icon at UM, making her story one worth prioritizing for The Miami Hurricane.

The story by the Miami Herald focused on Shalala’s anti-Trump platform, her Clinton connections and what the competition will be like for that congressional seat. The story by The Miami Hurricane focused much more on the impact the news had on campus and included quotes from UM administrators, such as Vice President for Student Affairs Patricia Whitely, and faculty such as Associate Professor of Political Science Joseph Uscinski.

The Miami Hurricane story also focused on Shalala’s impact during her tenure at UM to a greater extent than The Miami Herald did. These differences are illustrative of how different newspapers report their stories based on the audience. Whereas The Herald must tailor their stories to a greater Miami audience, The Hurricane can focus more on capturing the attention of the UM community, a much more specific audience.

State to end business with Venezuela

Posted on by

By ANDREA ILLAN

Venezuela has been experiencing the worst economic crisis in the country’s history since current president, Nicolas Maduro, came to power. Yet, American news media often overlook this collapse and focus more on the crises of other counties.

However, recent article from local Miami Spanish-language newspaper, El Nuevo Herald, reported on a new decision that might be good news for the Venezuelan people.

This decision, taken on Thursday by the Florida Senate, prohibits the State of Florida to engage in business with companies that support Maduro’s regime. The article reported that the vote to move forward with this regulation was unanimous.

Finalizing of this decision is especially important for the state of Florida in that it would prevents the state from indirectly contributing to an oppressive regime. The last thing Florida Senate needs for this motion to go through is Gov. Rick Scott’s signature.

State Sen. José Javier Rodríguez.

Additionally, the article reported on the Florida Senate’s point of view by interviewing one of its members, Sen. José Javier Rodríguez.

He said he expressed his support for the action and explained how it favors the Venezuelan people and the struggle for democracy in the country.

Given the high Venezuelan population in South Florida, El Nuevo Herald does a great job at catering to this group of likely readers. However, stories such as this one are still not being reported enough at the national level. The article can be found at http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/sur-de-la-florida/article204132024.html

Porn actress Daniels sues Trump

Posted on by

By ABBY LLOYD

We’ve all heard the story of President Trump’s affair with adult movie star Stormy Daniels. What we didn’t know was the extent to which Trump tried to cover this story up days before his election.

Daniels secret relationship with Trump began in 2006, when they first met at a golf tournament. Since then, Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen has wired Daniels $130,000 for her silence on the matter while Trump ran for office. Daniels lawyer, Michael Avenatti, has stated: “Trump failed to sign the hush agreement, therefore, nullifying it.”

The below image is taken from NBC News from the actual contract between Trump and Daniels. They had different names due to privacy.

“The Today Show” interviewed Avenatti on the gruesome details of Daniel’s sexual encounter with Trump. Avenatti declined to comment on some questions but did state: “She believes it’s important that the public learn the truth about what happened. I think it’s time for her to tell her story and for the public to decide who is telling the truth.”

The interviewer questioned Avenatti about Daniels action to take the $130,000 instead of just saying no the agreement.

Avenatti declined to comment and said that this was Daniels story to tell, not his. However, he did comment that there was a lot of side interrogations from Cohen to persuade Daniels from not coming forward.

CNN reported Daniels has given conflicting statements about her relationship with Trump. Avenatti came out with a statement saying, “Cohen was concerned the truth would be disclosed … through intimidation and coercive tactics, forced Daniels into signing a false statement wherein she stated that reports of her relationship with Mr. Trump were false.”

News media baffled by Nunberg outburst

Posted on by

By SOPHIA CONSTANTINO

Nearly every major news media outlet across the country stopped in their tracks Monday afternoon to gape at a live MSNBC interview with a former campaign adviser to President Trump, Sam Nunberg.

The afternoon began with a Washington Post story by Josh Dawsey reporting Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office had subpoenaed Nunberg to testify before a federal grand jury regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Nunberg refused.

Approximately 15 minutes after the story was released, MSNBC cut short an interview to go to Nunberg in a phone interview. The interview spiraled into a 20-minute, seemingly no-holds-barred spiel from Nunberg during which he divulged what he claims Muller’s office asked of him and that he had no intention of cooperating. Most shockingly, the former Trump-aide said that he thinks Trump “may have done something during the election” and that Muller may “have something” on the president, according to CNN.

Nunberg proceeded to call into various news media outlets, including two different CNN interviewers and New York news station NY1. He then reappeared on MSNBC, this time accompanied by three lawyers, to discuss whether or not he should cooperate with Muller.

The White House is baffled by Nunberg’s outburst, calling it “nuts” and “bizarre,” according to CNN’s Kaitlin Collins. National news media certainly share the sentiment.

Though Nunberg could have perhaps been motivated by his own alleged mistreatment by Trump along with Trump’s similar treatment of Nunberg’s mentor, Roger Stone, why Nunberg would then defy subpoena remains unclear. Nunberg suggests that Trump did something questionable during the 2016 election and, if so, has no interest in testifying.

Speculations as to why Nunberg, who actively hates Trump, would not testify, point towards Nunberg’s allegiance to Stone; according to Nunberg, Stone is suspect to collusion with Julian Assage, who is believed to have ties to Russian intelligence. If there is something to cover on Stone, it seems Nunberg is covering it.

Despite being initially adamant, The Washington Post reports that Nunberg may testify after a night of considerable advice gathering through his various news media appearances. It seems Nunberg’s obstinate resolve and speculative protection of Stone will not withstand the risk of jail time he could face for defying subpoena.

Another Trump Administration departure

Posted on by

By GRACE SMITH

Hope Hicks announced Wednesday that she planned to step down from her position as White House Communication Director and leave the White House. Her exit becomes the latest of 18 departures from the Trump White House staff, 15 of which were also result of resignation. She is also the third communications director to leave since the beginning of Trump’s presidency.

Hope Hicks speaks with Donald Trump within the Oval Office.

Hicks has been a long-time friend and confidant of the president and one of the few who could reportedly challenging his standing thoughts on certain issues.

When Donald Trump decided to run in 2015, he pulled Hicks from Ivanka’s branding and licensing team despite her lack of experience. She was a close adviser during the process and, even after her appointment to Communications director maintained a low public profiles by turning down interviews and not standing at the podium in the White House briefing room.

Hicks announced this just a day after her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee where she reportedly admitting to telling lies for and about the president but nothing related to the investigation into Russia interference with the presidential election.

However, several White House aides explained her decision to leave had nothing to do with her appearance before the House Intelligence Committee and claimed Hicks had made the choice days before the hearing because she did not like Washington, D.C., and did not want to stay and pretend she did.

A Twitter user compares the length of service between Hope Hicks and previous Communications Director Scaramucci.

Hick’s departure caps off a series of high-profile exits — including Sean Spicer as press secretary and James Comey as FBI director — since President Donald Trump took office in January 2017 and raises questions about the stability and structure of the Trump administration.

Many White House aides expressed hopefulness that now there would be more structure and stability within the administration. Others are waiting to see how President Trump reacts to losing a huge part of his major supports and personal advisers. For a man who relies very heavily on validation from those close to him, how will he react to a staff full of outsiders?

West Virginia teachers continue strike

Posted on by

By SOPHIA CONSTANTINO

After nearly a week of teacher walkouts throughout West Virginia, schools remained closed today and have been preemptively cancelled for tomorrow despite talks of an agreement to get teachers back in the classrooms.

The strikes began after Governor Jim Justice signed off on legislation that would grant teachers a two percent pay increase in July followed by a one percent increase over the next two years. The bill failed to address the state’s insufficient insurance program, a tax on payroll deductions, and the ever-rising cost of health care.

Considering that the state is ranked 49/50 in economy, 44/50 in health care, and 45/50 in education according to U.S. News, the subsequent rallies and strikes demanding stronger programs for educators are perhaps not expected expected, but comprehensible.

Though Wednesday was supposed to serve as a recovery day post-negotiations and Thursday a return to schedule normalcy, Justice’s announcement of his newest deal made on Tuesday sparked greater dissent than settlement. The new bill included a teacher pay increase by five percent, but again made no improvements to the teachers’ insurance program, which was the main concern of the first bill. School, then, was not in session today as legislators hoped.

Teachers instead crowd the state capitol today, holding signs proclaiming “No deal!” and “Will teach for insurance.”

According to CNN, Justice defended his attempts at compromise from the back of an SUV through a crowd of protesters, stating, “I’m not the king. I’m doing what all I can possibly do.”

President of the Senate Mitch Carmichael similarly expressed concerns to CNN that the state simply does not have the money to fund the raises.

As the news media scramble to grab hold of an ever-changing wreck of developments in the situation, sources like CNN, NPR, and WV Public Radio are doing an impressive job of keeping stories current.

Wrap-up reports went out last night that finally, school would be back in session and today, the news media have taken a whole new angle on the relentlessness of the strikes. This story has quickly become and defiantly remained one to watch; it looks as though the news media has every intention of keeping it that way.

Melania Trump addresses social media

Posted on by

By ANDREA ILLAN

First Lady Melania Trump delivered a speech about the challenges of American youth at a recent a White House luncheon.

In light of the recent protests by the younger generations of Americans regarding gun control, FLOTUS stressed the fact that children deserve a voice when it comes to these issues. Additionally, she encouraged parents to teach their children positive social media habits.

Many, saw the irony in this remark, as her husband’s social media presence has been anything but positive. And, as highlighted by BBC news, these people took their frustrations to twitter, where her comment about positive social media was ridiculed.

The BBC news article did a great job at providing tweets from Twitter users criticizing Melania’s speech:

These tweets and the others highlighted on the article imply her remarks are ironic given the nature of Donald Trump’s tweets.

However, he is not the only member of the Trump family guilty of negative social media usage.

The article also highlights the fact that Donald Trump Jr, her stepson, liked a post on social media that falsely accused an innocent man of being an “FBI stooge”.

Further, Mrs. Trump has been known for posting risqué pictures to her social media accounts prior to becoming First Lady. Even after her new position, she has been criticized for posting selfies and utilizing Snapchat filters on her posts.

So, the mass criticism of her speech also comes from her own usage of social media, which many believe to not be appropriate for the First Lady of the United States.