Trump Media

https://www.8shit.net/donald-trump-ends-school-shootings-banning-schools/

In the news today with the internet there is a huge amount of fake media that surfaces around the internet media world. There is a huge nesscessity to be able to establish credibility with your sources of information.

In this article I found the media source did not have credibility and was giving false information to his audience. The article talked about the recent school shooting that had the United States public opinion talking about gun control. There were many different opinions the surfaced in this conversation. In this article the author stated that Trump had made a statement that he was going to stop all school shootings by banning all schools. This authors statement was false from what president Trump’s actually response statement was to the recent school shooting and gun control conversation. The author made no point to establish credibility and made a very irrational comment that logically makes no sense. I believe he should have did his research on what President Trump’s actually response was to the situation and not just making irrational statment that was false. The article creates attention because of the statement but loses the audiences favor because of the false information.

Fake News Strategy From the Top

There has always been the existence of inaccurate and biased reporting. We can go back to biblical times, and even Pope Francis recently said that in the Old Testament was the first of “fake news”. However, today it seems like there’s been a complete breakdown in the news and media industry, including new media such as blogs, and the floodgates have opened on “fake news”, to the point where it’s becoming harder to know which information is completely real or merely partially real.

Despite the staggering amount of inaccurate and biased reporting occurring these days, nothing could be more terrifying than when the highest office in the country is the one creating the misinformation. On January 21, 2017, then-White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, stood in front of the media and challenged them that they had wrongly reported the audience numbers for President Trump’s inauguration. Spicer stated, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe.”

Spicer lied right in the faces of journalists and essentially the world, saying that the in-person and broadcast audience numbers were the highest of all time. We all knew then, and we still know now, that the Trump administration’s assertions were flat-out wrong, on both counts. The data didn’t back up their claim.

In addition to the horror of our government boldly lying to the public, particularly on such an insignificant matter, the more troubling fact is that this government refuses to admit when they are caught in a lie. In my opinion, they seem to have a policy of “lie and deny”.

I have to admit that as much as I detest this strategy, it’s almost brilliant in some crazy way. Think about it, no matter your position on a subject you can win any debate if you just say you don’t agree with the opposition’s information and continue to repeat that. When presented with facts, challenge from where the information came. Also, create fake reporting to support your misinformation. With these tools, you will never lose an argument again.

 

Armed teachers?

I don’t often browse news websites in my free time so when trying to find an article to use for this assignment I looked at a few mainstream media organizations. The article that I ending up choosing is from the website USA Today. I researched online how accurate articles from this site are just out of curiosity and it was reported as being highly factual and used the least amount of biased sources. It did note that there is a slight left leaning editorial bias. This was pretty obvious by the article I chose. Credibility is interesting to think about when reading articles because people tend to have the assumption that news reports online have to be factual when almost more often than not there is a hidden agenda.

The article I ended up choosing is titled “Trump’s awful plan to arm teachers is straight from the NRA playbook.” I am not someone who is really knowledgable on or into politics but I am able to immediately tell that the title alone highlights the agenda of the article written by the columnist James, Alan Fox.

James starts off giving credit to Trump for meeting the grieving survivors of the recent Parkland, Florida shooting.  He then dives straight to his point by the specific choice of language he uses. He talks about Trump’s ‘cozy, political alliance with the National Rifle Association’. This assists in getting his opinion across to readers. He also mentions Trump feeling caught between the students demands for stricter gun laws and his supporters concern for their second amendment rights. Trump’s NRA backed ‘solution’ is to have armed teachers in schools. I think a good counter argument to Trump’s solution would be to mention that there was an armed security officer on site that didn’t even enter the school. He was someone who was trained his whole life with guns and wasn’t able to enter the school and stop the shooter. How could we then expect our teachers to especially on their $40,000 a year salary?

I think the author did a good job of criticizing Trump’s solution from a leftist perspective but he could have offered a perspective from the other side. What would someone who supported Trump’s solution have to say? Because this topic is so controversial and currently trending I have seen what the supporters, who are mostly parents on my Facebook news feed have to say. They said that they would feel safer bringing their kids to school with armed teachers. I am not a parent yet so I don’t know what I would feel comfortable with at this point but I think at least hearing the two perspectives could assist me in forming a more knowledgable opinion. What I do know is that arming teachers is not going to be the only solution dealing with such a complex issue.

 

Shut Up and Dribble?

Laura Ingraham (who?) told LeBron James to shut up and dribble. She’s referencing his interview with Uninterrupted. LeBron criticized Donald Trump… which he can do.

“[Trump] doesn’t understand the people, and doesn’t give a fuck about the people… it’s scary”.

I understand, I’m a minority, it’s not comfortable having a president that is so willing to down ethnic people.

Laura Ingraham saw diffrent, downing LeBron and Kevin Durant, not with perspective, but bully talk.

Things like:
“must they run their mouths like that… this is what happens when you attempt to leave high school a year early to join the NBA… ungrammatical… unwise to seek political advice from someone.. nobody voted for you… shut up and dribble.”

LeBron can say what he wants, he’s not threatening anybody. He has the right to criticize. He finished high school, so now your speaking fake news. Plus, the wealth of knowledge, information, and perspectives he has gained through life, with his position maybe more valuable than anything else. Who nows, Laura can’t get into LeBron’s mind, who knows what he’s read, what he’s learned, what he knows. Ungrammatical, your critiquing their grammar… as far as I’m concerned, language and it’s correctness is about the place you are in, it is about culture. The right way to speak, technically is where you are. It is the how people speak in that area. Maybe they don’t speak like you, but that doesn’t mean they’re speaking incorrect. We as Americans vote to put someone into office that represent us, if they don’t we can criticize, and Lebron’s criticism are valid, Trump has show that.

Let’s not mute others, lets not speak condescendingly about others, because you don’t like what they say. Lets have a conversation. Shout out to LeBron and KD. We are all people with many facet, so be you and speak your mind, the president is suppose to serve us.

P.S. Kevin Durant has a Masters in Law.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/19/587097707/laura-ingraham-told-lebron-james-to-shutup-and-dribble-he-went-to-the-hoop

“Future” President Trump

https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

The first thing about this article is that it’s clearly outdated, and Michael Moore’s worst fear has become a reality: Donald J Trump is our 45th president. However, this blog posts is a good example of clear bias.

Don’t get me wrong though, I love everything about this blog post. From bashing Trump, to clearly stating why he shouldn’t be our president, this post is very good. I especially like the section about how our brains have tricked ourselves into thinking that there’s no way Trump can win; I’m sure most people can relate to this.

Through Moore’s writing, it is very evident that he takes an anti-Trump stance, so obviously he’s going to bad mouth Trump. You would never find one sentence in any of his blogs about how great Trump his. This is where he loses some credibility. If he’s always going to bad mouth Trump, he’s only catering to one audience; those that also want Trump impeached. He’s missing out on the audience that may not hate EVERYTHING Trump has done.

My criticism for Moore would be to write from the other perspective. It’s okay to talk about how bad Trump is (and encouraged at that), but if he were to talk about Trump in a positive light even just a few times, he could also pull in readers that want to see both sides, or even some Trump enthusiasts. Although I can imagine how hard it’d be for someone like him to praise anything Trump has done.

Vice News and How They Feel about Donald Trump

Article

Vice is a print magazine and website based in Montreal, Canada that is focused on arts, culture, and news topics. I have followed Vice for a few years now because their media is entertaining  and because they typically focus on under-reported topics. They have a reputation for being politically-incorrect and can be provocative with their headlines.

This article that I reviewed was titled, “Where the Fuck Is Trump’s Infrastructure Plan? He promised one within 100 days if taking office. It’s now day 322.” Immediately upon reading the title, you can already determine that this article will be extremely critical of the current President of the United States, Donald Trump.

From the time that I’ve spent following Vice, I have a feeling they are on the liberal side of the political spectrum. They have been bashing Trump even before taking office and the language in the article reflects their feeling towards him. “By now, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Trump would hype up plans that don’t exist or propose timelines he can’t keep.” There is no attempt to have a objective neutral position and the author wants the audience to know how they really feel.

To tell you the truth, I’d rather have publications say write there honest opinions about topics rather than focusing on always trying to please the public. But it should be rooted in truth with factual information to back up claims.