Rams SCM Blog

            Different media houses have been accused in the recent few years of showing bias to a certain political party or argument. This has largely been caused by the different media objects covering similar stories in different ways. The recently released Mueller Report clearly showed how different media houses cover news in different ways. The Mueller Report did not make any specific conclusions or findings regarding whether President Trump engaged in collusion or obstruction. While CNN noted that the report can be used to indict Trump and finds offenses against the Obama administration, Fox News and The Hill mostly reported Trump’s side of the story.

            CNN published a report titled “Mueller's Report Leaves Open Possibility of Post-White House Criminal Exposure for Trump” by Kara Scannell. The article provided details about how the report leaves room for criminal exposure of Donald Trump. One of the aspects that the report noted was that it left room for obstruction for Trump. The report noted that the only way that Trump would be indicted would be after he leaves office. It also noted that the best defense by Trump against obstruction was winning re-election in 2020. Additionally, the report noted that there were 14 investigations that provided evidence for potential criminal activity. The report was mostly biased towards the offenses that Trump made and not on how the report did not find Trump not guilty of obstruction.

            CNN published another article titled “Mueller’s Report Looks Bad for Obama” by Scott Jennings. The report noted that the Obama administration did not do enough to stop the Russians from interfering in the United States elections. It noted how the collusion for Trump could have been invented by proponents of the Obama Administration in order to cover for their failures. The report focuses mainly on the fact that Russia meddled in the U.S. election and finds the Obama Administration at fault.

            Fox News published an article titled “Trump Takes Aim at 'highly conflicted' Mueller, 'fake news media' amid Russia Report Fallout” by Adam Shaw. The report showed negative aspects of the report and mostly concentrated on the views that Trump had on the report. The report noted how Trump’s legal team referred to it as a total victory for the President and that there was no collusion with Russia. It also noted that there were some benefits that the report had such as helping the 2020 Trump campaign raise $1 million dollars. A small part of the report was focused on the claims of Obstruction from the Mueller Report.

            The Hill published an article titled “Trump After Mueller Report Release: ‘I’m Having a Good Day’” by Jordan Fabian. The article was mainly focused on the reaction that Trump had after the report and showed Trump’s side of the story. The article further noted how Trump noted that he was having a good day and there was no collusion and no obstruction. The article was mainly biased on the side of Trump and his views about the recently released report.

            In conclusion, different media houses reported the release in different ways. CNN mainly reported on the fact that there was still a possibility for finding Trump guilty for offenses on obstruction. CNN also reported that the Obama administration could be at fault for collusion. Fox News reported how Trump was found not guilty of collusion and The Hill noted how Trump reacted to the Mueller Report and found it good news. While CNN found that there was still room to find Trump and Obama guilty, Fox News and The Hill was biased on Trump’s side of the story and why Trump was happy with the report.

  References

Fabian, Jordan. "Trump After Mueller Report Release: 'I'm Having A Good Day'". The hill, 2019, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/439515-trump-after-mueller-report-release-im-having-a-good-day.

Jennings, Scott. "Mueller's Report Looks Bad for Obama". CNN, 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html.

Scannell, Kara. "Mueller's Report Leaves Open Possibility of Post-White House Criminal Exposure for Trump". CNN, 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/trump-mueller-criminal-exposure-possibility-after-white-house/index.html.

The recent devastation of the Notre Dame Cathedral has brought about tears of sorrow worldwide. The cathedral was known as “The heart” of Paris.  It is was one of the major attractions in the French capitol. It was built in the 12th and 13th centuries and is the most famous Gothic cathedrals of the middle ages.  It sees approximately 12 million tourists each year.  This was a major devastation felt worldwide and is covered by every news network.  The president of France states they will rebuild.  Only time will tell how much money it will take and how much time to bring the cathedral close to its original state. 

This blog will discuss the different views of what occurred this night of great tragedy.  Some media outlets have already determined the cause of the fire. Some state the fire was an accident.  Some have decided to put a catchy headline to get the consumer interested in the reading, while giving a false statement.  Some have decided it was pure evil and intentional. We will investigate each of these theories.  These articles were published on 4/16/19.   At the end I ask for you to please respond and explain to me your feelings about the fire and what you think occurred.

The first article I read was from Fox News Network.  They concentrate on the idea that the fire was an accident.  The Paris Fire Department state that the fire started at 6:50pm local time.  They state it may have been started accidentally while workers were renovating inside of the cathedral.  It was a 6.8 million project that was expected to be completed near 2022.  Fire chief Jean-Claude Gallet stated, “Two-thirds of the cathedral roof has been ravaged.”   The police state they are currently treating the fire as an accident.  Luckily because they were renovating, they just recently removed 16 bronze statues last week.  These would have been destroyed in the fire. 

The second article I read was from the Russian Times.  The main headline states, “Huge blaze devastates Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris: How it unfolded.”  My first instinct when I read this article is that they uncovered what actually occurred. After reading through the entire article, I determined that they actually don’t know what happened at all. As Fox News reported, they also state that the fire started at 6:50pm.  They were more cautious by stating that it is unknown where the blaze started.  I felt this was important to state because media outlets want to be the first to report something and sometimes they portray incorrect information.  This article was written with more engaging words then Fox News.  For instance, one sentence states, “They rushed to the scene and tried to contain the blaze with water hoses, yet their efforts were in vain as the flames continued to march across the roof.” There were more pictures in this article. 4 of them with different views of the exterior portion and 1 of the interior. I feel this article was more engaging, but also feel I was “tricked” into reading it thinking they might have more information on how this happened. 

The third and final article is from the Signs of the Times which boasts being an independent unbiased alternative news source.  They also state the fire started at 6:50pm and the causes of the incident remains unknown. As I continue to read this article, it starts getting interesting. First, they state that the cost of when they were working on reconstructing prior to the fire cost 12.43 million dollars. As I previously mentioned in paragraph 3 Fox News stated 6.8 million dollars.  This is a 6-million-dollar difference.  So, it’s either it’s a typo or someone is giving out different information. Possibly even from the same person. Secondly, it states in the article that French social media are suspicious of foul play.  At first this seems more of a conspiracy theory but reading further I start to understand why this was brought up.  Here are the facts:  12 French churches were vandalized in one week in mid-March.  A month prior another fire broke out at an iconic church in Paris called the Saint-Sulpice.  In February there were another 4 churches vandalized including the Notre Dame Church in Dijon.  Then, the articles last sentence says, “Who will be blamed? Russians? Muslims?”

In conclusion, there is a lot to say about how the media portrays an event or topic.  It can be far left, far right, fake and at the end… Just confusing to people like me that use different media outlets to understand an event. Some catch our attention with bold dramatic headlines.  Some media outlets use dramatized photos or videos.  It is our jobs as citizens to come up with our own decisions on what happened with proper analyzing of articles.  It is sad to say that there is not one article I agree totally with.  For me, I am leaning more towards the last article. It seems too much of a coincidence that the most famous cathedral in Paris caught fire accidently almost an exact week from Easter.  I feel this was intentionally done on purpose by someone or a group of people.  I don’t think we will ever know who did it.  I don’t think a hired company getting paid 6 to 12 million dollars didn’t have safety measures in place.  I am sure the workers and the supervisor of the crew had the experience and knowledge to perform their jobs.  Saying that, anything is possible.  There are so many things that could have happened.  Maybe they hired some illegal aliens to save some money and one of them flicked their cigarette.  Maybe there was someone in the crew that hated the church or hated the religion.  Maybe there was someone that snuck up there and started the fire.  There was a mass going on when the fire started, so it wouldn’t be strange for a person to be in the cathedral.  The are so many theories that I could contemplate.  My hope is that someone wouldn’t be this malicious and burn the sacred cathedral down. But, times have changed.  I have changed.  Could 911 have changed me?

References

Chamberlain, Samuel. “Notre Dame Cathedral Fire Being Investigated as Accident for Now, Prosecutors Say.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 16 Apr. 2019, www.foxnews.com/world/notre-dame-cathedral-fire-being-investigated-as-accident-for-now-prosecutors-say.

“Huge Blaze Devastates Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris: How It Unfolded.” RT International, 16 Apr. 2019, www.rt.com/news/456641-notre-dame-huge-blaze-paris/.

The Resignation: Magic Johnson

Just recently, the President of Basketball Operations for the Los Angeles Lakers, Magic Johnson abruptly left his position. This was done without notice to his boss, nor anyone else within the organization and came to a surprise to the sports world. Many may know Earvin “Magic” Johnson as a point guard of the Lakers, cementing himself as one of the greatest NBA players of all time. Others may recognize him as the player famous for becoming HIV positive and having to retire from the NBA. Even through the years, Magic has maintained a connection within sports, becoming a partial owner of the LA Dodgers and most recently, President of the LA Lakers. Any person able to accomplish such feats and achieve their goals must possess extreme will and determination. This was no different for Magic and to many, the way in which he stepped down from his position is a complete shock.

Magic became the President of Basketball Operations in 2017. Having been a larger than life NBA superstar and the LA Lakers needing a big name to hopefully attract free agents, it seemed to be the perfect fit. However, the transition from the court to the front office is not always the easiest. Not everyone is equipped with business acumen or the ability to scout talent, even if they themselves were of great talent. This was also the case with Michael Jordan, whom had the same position for the Washington Wizards after retiring. However, the difference here is that Jordan was more interested in becoming an owner of a team, which he accomplished with the now Charlotte Hornets. It was this similar drive that was expected of Magic to return the LA Lakers to previous glories.

Their was thought to be no more prestigious front office position than that of the LA Lakers president. Living in one of the most glamorous cities in the US and having the ability to return one of the winningest organizations in NBA history to dominance sounds like an amazing opportunity. However, after two years of odd signings and trades, tampering accusations, and lackluster team performance; Magic Johnson decided to forgo many people’s dream job and return to being “himself.” There is no dispute as to why Magic resigned as he stated, “I’m going back to my beautiful life.” Of course there are rumblings in amongst media and insiders of the “real reason” for his resignation. Of those media takes, I was tasked to compare two different outlets. I initially considered the obvious ESPN article, due to being a huge sports story. I instead looked at a few different media sources and decided on an article from Time Sports,  Why You Can't Blame the Lakers' Magic Johnson for Calling it Quits by Sean Gregory and For His Final Act, Magic Made The Lakers Disappear by Albert Burneko on Deadspin.

One of the articles I enjoyed reading on the events that unfolded was, Why You Can't Blame the Lakers' Magic Johnson for Calling it Quits, found in the Time Sports, part of Time Magazine. This staple in weekly news has been going since the 1920s and has evolved to becoming an online publication. This particular article took a different approach to covering the Magic resignation. Instead of the normal breakdown of everything that went wrong with during his time as President of Operations, Sean Gregory explored a lighter side of the ordeal. Boasting that giving up on a dream job for many people is easy when you are, in fact, Magic Johnson. Living life as Magic can be far more interesting and rewarding than just being known as the President of one of the most historic NBA franchises.  

It is this take on the situation that initially interested me. Being a sports fan, I already knew of all the issues that plagued Magic’s recent tenure. In short, he did little to nothing to return the team to the greatness that once was. So reading about his futility did little to entertain me. However, Gregory’s take that he is far better off just becoming the beloved Magic and not the President of a failing historic franchise was a breath of fresh air. His comparisons to previous failed attempts by other well known NBA players in their attempts to coach or play in the front office was actually something I thought of myself. Gregory portrayed Magic as a man that began to understand his limits, avoiding to tarnish his legacy and instead enjoy his life. Why stress out over a job if you do not have to? This was what Gregory tries to get the reader to understand. Even though few, if any, can actually appreciate his view on the situation, it is surely an interesting take.

Gregory avoids a smear campaign of Magic and his failures. Instead, he has a light hearted outlook of a man just wanting to enjoy life. Even I can see how great it could be to just walk around, being admired and loved. Being able to give back to their community and fully enjoy themselves while doing so. That does seem like a great life to live and even though Magic approached his resignation in an odd fashion, he did it his way.

The other article, For His Final Act, Magic Made The Lakers Disappear by Albert Burneko was found on Deadspin. Deadspin is a sports blog website founded in 2005. Obviously not as much of an American mainstay as Time, however appeals to many as stories have a different approach. In this particular article, Burneko unlike Gregory, focused on Magic’s failure and how it not only lead to his unexpected resignation but also, “disappearance” of one of the NBA’s greatest franchises.

The article focuses on the many different decisions Magic had a hand in during his tenure. Earlier I mentioned knowing a good amount of the decisions that were made, however, Burneko does a good job in telling the facts and creating something that is interesting to read. Where Gregory lauds Magic for his reason to quit; Burneko sees it as a “cold” reason to leave a franchise. Burneko does not go on to speak about all the other failed stars who have tried to coach or work in the front office. Instead, he breaks down the many possible “real reasons” for Magic’s surprise departure. These reasons including not wanting to fire the coach and look like “the bad guy”, bungling the trade for Anthony Davis, and trading away a young asset that has become a star just a few years later. Burneko points out this has culminated with a regressed season (even though the team had a better record), and a lost season for NBA’s greatest star, Lebron James.

Burneko's article, even though mostly a criticism of Magic's tenure as president was written somewhat sarcastically. It never approaches harsh tones, but gets the point across of his failures and interesting reason for quitting. To me, this is the perfect tone to use for an article. The use of slight jabs towards Magic (and the organization as a whole) makes for a better read than blandly discussing his failures. Burneko’s final line embraces his tone of the article, jokingly stating Magic will be able to loudly give his opinion of his former team via Twitter.