NPR Politics Podcast: Covering a Single-Minded Campaign

Sarah Lorenzo

sarahlorenzo215@gmail.com

The NPR politics team kept Trump talk at the center of its two shows this week, while premiering a new "Monday Mail" segment dedicated to answering listener questions, which they related to current, Trump-tied events with ease. 

Yet, it's clear the politics podcast's Trump-laden focus is in synch with many other mainstream media this campaign. Not only is Trump a sensationalist figure whose aptitude for drama creates interest with ease, he is clearly at the center of both parties' campaigns: his efforts to dominate the news are successful, and Clinton has stepped back to let him steal the spotlight. 

Hillary Clinton's Twitter page emphasizes an anti-
Trump message. (source: twitter.com/HillaryClinton)

Sam Sanders, a member of the podcast team, was the first to note this during the Thursday show: "This is now several weeks in a row that we have had a lot to talk about with Donald Trump, and then we get to Hillary Clinton, and it's like, where have you been," he said. "Clinton's had like two public events in two weeks. What is she doing? Or not doing?" 

Since radio doesn't come with dialogue tags, it's unclear whether Scott Detro or Dominico Montanaro then argued that Clinton's strategy of seclusion is deliberate, but one of the veteran reporters notes that Clinton's strategy might not work without an affirmative message. Although Clinton has many policy platforms, the speaker says, "It's hard for her to put together a crystallized vision of what a Clinton - Hillary Clinton - future would look like for the country."

The Politics Podcast rounded out its Clinton coverage with an original dive into the roots of the Clinton campaign, exposing the Trump-averse voting logic that exists not only in the GOP but fuels some Democrats' commitment to the Clinton campaign. Campaign reporter Asma Khalid shared her insight on anti-Trump reasoning she heard from many voters during her visit to North Carolina, including speculation that Clinton might benefit from an unusual "trickle up" voter effect, where voters may be inspired to visit the polls on election day out of fear that Donald Trump might win.

Finally, the team touched on the enduring coverage of Hillary Clinton's emails, which are still being released in batches by the FBI. The email coverage is yet another sign of a campaign with a limited scope: while the Trump campaign emphasizes its anti-immigration stance and topped the news again last week with its candidate's visit to Mexico, the Clinton campaign continues to focus on Trump's toxicity while coping with email mayhem and lingering criticism about Benghazi. Although Clinton may be fighting to push past email accusations that have weighed on her campaign for months, this election season is deeply rooted in issues of the past.

Despite the limited scope of the presidential campaign, the NPR team rounded out their podcast (and added even more comprehensive coverage in their new segment, "Monday Mail") with diverse listener questions that allowed the NPR reporters to dive into campaign history, technicalities, and even add analysis of how and when the Senate might hold supreme court nomination hearings.

 

Home team station critical of RNC

Christine Holmes | ch850016@ohio.edu

July was either a time to flock to the city on the lake or flee, depending on individual political enthusiasm.

With record numbers of journalists registered to cover the 2016 Republican National Convention, the home town journalists of Cleveland seemed especially protective of their turf.

The city's NBC affiliate, WKYC, took the coverage opportunity to heart and provided content on nearly any topic imaginable.

Just searching the station's website with the words "Trump and RNC" resulted in more than 1,200 hits.

Screenshot of search on WKYC website/ Christine Holmes

Stories included information on security, what convention-goers could and could not bring, protests, speeches, and much more.

Not reading through each story, rather skimming headlines, it appeared as though the station took a highly critical stance on everything RNC-related.

Stories about the security forces were in depth and investigative, digging up records on some of the officers coming from out of town to secure the convention.

One story in particular was rather interesting as it revealed one officer expected to patrol the RNC had killed three people since 2008.



The anchor tossing the story even claims possession of RNC by calling it "our convention," which indicated the pride this station took in covering such a grand scale event in its own backyard.

Perhaps that is why the station tended to be highly critical of every detail involving the convention.

Other articles and videos posted on the station's website seemed to be very anti-Trump, or maybe it was the inventible result of the convention's events (plagiarized speech, offensive statements, and protests).

Regardless, the station took a watchdog stance on the Republican National Convention.

The stories went more in depth than simple summaries of the day's events.

The reporters at WKYC questioned everything happening in their city and provided an alternative to the raw streams of speeches and the general public could watch on CNN and other major networks.

In this case, WKYC challenged authority for its viewers and asked the questions the people couldn't.

One criticism of the station is that maybe it took too much of an opposing stance that it lost its objectivity.The following stories serve as examples:

Elizabeth Banks mocks Trump
Donald Trump and Mike Pence share an awkward air kiss

Although it's good to balance out a week of what could be counties pro-GOP stories, this station may have gone a little too far in its critiques.

For those not in Cleveland, they are only seeing negative stories coming out of this station and that's also not an accurate depiction.

Trump Foreign Policy Update

Stephen Olson
So070712@gmail.com

                                                                   "Build The Wall"

Wednesday night was set to be Trump’s “Official Foreign Policy” speech night. This left many wondering, what will he do? From day one of Trump’s brute campaign he has relentlessly driven home the idea of building a full wall to line the border of the United States and Mexico.
 
 However, last week in a Sean Hannity interview Trump pulled a classic Donald move and seemed to once again be attempting to shift away from a major position. Not just any position, the position that set the stage for Trump becoming the 2016 Republican nominee
.
 Many analysts instantly freaked out on Fox News saying that taking an immigration stance similar to Obama and Bush, as Trump had stated in the interview, would be detrimental to the future of his campaign. However, I give Fox news credit for truly breaking down what it would take to create a quality border for our nation. The fact of the matter is that it is not physically possible to build a material wall the entire length of the border, but with technology we can get results that are close.

 “Virtual Walls” use radar, GPS, and other methods to alert authorities when and exactly where the wall is being crossed. This technology is already in use, highly accurate, and highly effective. What seemed to be Trump pivot on immigration left many wondering, has Trump finally figured out that his plan is unrealistic? Or is he just doing this to try and gain some moderate votes from those whom believe he is currently too racist and unrealistic to vote for. On Wednesday night Trump answered most of the questions, once again suggesting there will be a physical wall from border to border.

The People’s Election, For Now  

This raises the question, if Trump knows building a physical an entire wall isn’t going to happen, why does he keep saying that it is going to happen? The answer is simple; with the gap Trump is facing in the polls he has no choice but to say whatever people want to hear, even if it is no longer how he feels. This election cycle has slipped out of the hands of Clinton and Trump, with what now seems to be the masses wishes running the campaigns.

 Is this all bad? Are the thoughts of the people becoming campaign platforms something that is realistic, sustainable, and plausible? In an election like this, one must be fearful that everything we are hearing is empty promises, and that at the end of the day the original agendas put in place by out candidates will be carried out as intended.

As Trump and Clinton continue to go back and fourth on different stances, one thing if for sure: Nobody, not even the candidates themselves know exactly what their plan will be once entering the White house. Until then we as journalists will continue to play the guessing game, and will continue to label every mind change as “news,” when the only real news is that we have two candidates who have no clue and will do whatever it takes.

How the Media Doesn't Cover the Election

Leander Edmiston
le930612@ohio.edu

Tuesday, August 30, the cover of The New York Times reads, "Clinton Piles Up Research In Bid To Needle Trump." Wednesday, August 31, The Washington Post reads, "Trump's High-Risk, Low Reward Trip To Mexico Is Sort Of Baffling." Thursday, September 1, The Wall Street Journal's front page reads, "Trump Talks Tough On Wall."

wsj.com

Every morning for almost a year I've woken up reading another headline, speech analysis or sensational story about the same two candidates, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. Those stories have become a part of my morning routine, and in a strange way they have become an important part of my life. And what should I expect? It's election season, and newspapers write what's newsworthy. Meaning the Presidential candidates they most often write about are the ones most people are talking about. But wait. If newspapers mostly cover what people are talking about, and people talk most about what newspapers are writing about then how can we start a national dialogue about anything other than Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump?

Newspapers are the public's gateway to information, and they have an obligation to accurately represent the world we live in. The media and popular culture are co-dependent, after all newspapers are a business. But that dependency may jeopardize the medias fair and accurate representation of the world, and specifically the political landscape. However, journalists and politicians have understood the importance of political representation for alternative candidates for years, which is why Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934 and the equal-time rule, requiring television stations to treat qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time.

Congress later amended the law so that stations who covered candidates on regularly scheduled newscasts, interviews and on-the-spot news events no longer had to had to offer equal time to other candidates running for that office. Debates for example are considered on-the-spot-news events, which means that as long as a station is hosting a debate for one party they do not need to provide an equivalent opportunity for another.

Over the next four weeks I will examine and discuss the ways the media covers third-party presidential candidates, and compare the ways major media and independent news media cover the third-parties. I will study the history of alternative parties in the United States and the position they have in America today. I will ask questions like "does the media cover the alternative parties proportionate to their popularity with voters," and  "does the media have an ethical obligation to cover the entire spectrum of candidates?"

Chicago Monitor - Three’s a crowd: How the media ignored third party candidates

More Information About the Communications Act of 1934 by Cornell university Law School

The Washington Post: Critical Analysis of Both Candidates Provides Readers with Insight

Zahara Pruitt

zaharapruitt@aol.com

The Washington Post is known to be a major media publication and has a history of offering great political coverage. However, this election has already proven to provide the Post with a few unique challenges.

 Back in June, Presidential Candidate Donald Trump barred all Washington Post reporters from covering campaign events. This move was something I had never previously seen done by a Presidential nominee. Trump cites inaccurate reporting for his reason, more specifically a Post headline that read “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting”.

courtesy CNBC.com

In July, the Washington Post also released an editorial piece entitled “Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy” in which they specifically lay out reasons as to why Mr. Trump is unfit to be America’s next president. Some of those reasons include his “lack of

experience in the political sphere, his ignorance and his contempt for democratic norms”. There is even a part in the article where the Post says “A Trump presidency would be dangerous for the nation and for the world.”

Given these apparent obstacles that this media outlet is facing, I was somewhat pleasantly surprised at the level of fairness they have shown in their coverage of Trump and Clinton in recent weeks.

           

Like more than half of Americans, I typically consume most of my news throughout the day on my cellphone. When looking at the Washington Post app, most of the political headlines for the day were stories about Mr. Trump.

However, when looking at the Post’s website, the layout shows a more balanced number of stories about both major candidates.

And when searching the two candidates’ names separately, it is apparent that a nearly equal amount of stories are posted about each candidate each day. However, more Trump stories have larger photos on the website and are placed where we would consider them to be “above the fold”, if you can imagine a fold on a laptop.

I also noticed that while the Post writers were critical of both candidates, they more often were critical of Trump as a person; while they tended to critique Clinton’s policies more often.

This political cycle has already proven to be a whirlwind and it will be interesting to see how the media continues to cover the race in coming weeks. 

ABC: Your Voice, Your Vote

Megan Vanselow

mv206613@ohio.edu

2016 Election coverage on ABC is themed Your Voice, Your Vote. A campaign in itself, for the network to convince voters that they're simply providing you with the raw facts, and it is up to each viewer to decide which way to swing based on the coverage they digest from the ABC channel/internet platforms.

Is that really what’s happening though? Like a lot of news outlets, the first click onto the ABC News website, is an alarming headline and photo regarding Donald Trump front and center, big and bold. While I’ll make the argument that on more days than not, this is the case for ABC, I will also admit that today in particular, there is justification in leading with a Trump story, because he gave his highly anticipated immigration speech yesterday.

The article contains several moments of fact checking on things Trump claims. For example they include a tweet from the President of Mexico that states Mexico will not pay for the wall, paired with a direct quote from Trump saying they will, from his speech. There are also several side stories, visible while viewing the speech and the article tagged along, stating that Trump is back to where he started with immigration after the speech, and a whole “Fact Check” ing article about his immigration policy.

This paragraph struck me the most. ABC mentions that Trump’s speech was emotional when widows and parents of dead children told stories about their deceased and is very careful by putting quotes around “illegal immigrants” to make sure it is clear that those are Trumps words, not theirs.

However, in the same paragraph, even in the very next sentence, ABC makes a direct comparison to Clinton, in what looks like an attempt to lift her up after talking down her opponent for the entire article. They aren't careful to clarify gun violence or law enforcement by putting it in quotes to show that those are her words and not theirs like they felt the need to do for Trump’s set of grieving parents.

The whole time you read the main recap article from Trump’s speech, it is obvious that ABC wants you to watch. I’m not sure that its Trump’s speech they're trying to catch your attention with, though. Both at the top of the article, and in a pop up side box as you scroll down, last night’s speech is playing. But the ad that plays before it starts, is a pro-Hillary campaign ad that directly calls out Trump. And it doesn't end there.

After the speech concludes, a new video automatically begins playing. This time, a story about Hillary. It is a piece first discussing her remarks about Trump’s visit to Mexico saying it takes more than dropping in and then heading home after a year of insults.

So they show you Trump’s speech, write about everything that is wrong with it and in the moment it is over, show you that, hey, Hillary Clinton isn't a fan either. Although the story goes on to show the number of people who dislike her is growing, the main theme was that she is out there doing what she can to make things right, and talking about how wrong Trump is.

It may also be convenient to add that the ad that was displayed before her story, was for Listerine. Oddly not a pro Trump ad. 

NYTimes.com: Is Experience Enough, or is it More Important to be Gracious?

Micaela Marshall
mm392413@ohio.edu

A basic "requirement" to be the next POTUS has been challenged this election. The requirement I am referring to is political experience.

If someone were to look at Donald Trump's resumé they would find that he became an American phenomenon by earning his billions in the business world as a New York real estate developer and from his reality TV show: "The Apprentice." The 2016 Republican nominee has no prior political experience.

Source: http://www.nettbladet.com/selvutvikling/informativt-realitytv.html

Source: http://communityjournal.net

But, does that matter?

Some voters are actually drawn to Trump because he lacks experience. They believe he can provide a voice that matches more of what the people actually want, instead of what a politician says the people should want. In some cases, political experience and political corruption go hand-and-hand. Which leads me to the other presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has been in the public eye as a Democratic political figure for decades. Her experience stems from her time serving as a New York Senator, the first lady of the U.S., and she most recently served as the secretary of state under the Obama administration.

The Art of...
A New York Times Op-Ed columnist, David Brooks, wrote a piece he titled: The Art of Gracious Leadership.

In the article he discusses the idea that it is not enough to be experienced to win this election--the public only trusts people who "turn experience into graciousness."

Brooks uses examples of gracious leaders such as "Lincoln, Gandhi, Mandela, and Dorothy Day" to claim that Clinton is not one; she never confronts her scandals in a straightforward manner. She sidesteps situations, withholds information, never admits the truth, and refuses to ever come clean.

Her experience doesn't seem to be enough for some people to believe her and give her their vote. She is making the decision to be a leader that values control over trusting the public. Brooks concludes his piece with "It's never too late to learn from experience."

Reader's reactions were emotional.

There were few Trump supporters that made their opinions known in the hundreds of comments. This could mean that only those who disagreed with Brooks felt compelled to voice their opinion. But it could also mean that those who loyally support Clinton do so in spite of her flawed character. Many of her supporters that commented agreed she has made many mistakes. They argue that her experience makes up for it.

#ImWithHer supporters defended her, claiming the column was sexist. Some stated that she needs to be tough in order to survive as a woman in politics, and that "grace" has never been a requirement to be president.

NYmag.com writer, Dayna Evans, wrote a sarcastic spoof in response to the column that she titled: The Art of Writing About a Female Presidential Candidate.

Evans disagrees with Brooks entirely. She criticizes Brooks using the exact same language he used in his article to discuss Clinton.

Fewer readers left comments on this piece, but almost all of those who did defended Brooks.

One stated that the idea that we must be "gracious" when writing about female presidential candidates is sexist because they "deserve the same amount of scrutiny that any other presidential candidate deserves."

Regardless of the viewpoint, both articles are getting the public worked up and angry; just like this election has been impacting Americans from the start. It is still unclear what matters most to the voters: experience or grace. I suppose we will all find out in November.