BHerreraBlog

1. One of my sources is the book What Do We Do Now: Standing Up For Your Values In Trump’s America. This book is a good description of the anti-Trump sentiment in America and is divided into chapters separating the different factions of anti-Trump feeling with regards to race, islam, etc.
2. Another source is the NPR article “Study: News Coverage of Trump More Negative Than Other Presidents”. This source has plenty of statistics detailing how much and why people do or don’t support Trump. It also analyzes how the discourse around politics has changed since Trump.
3. Another source is the Project MUSE article “The Post-Racial and Post-Ethical Discourse of Donald Trump.” This source will be useful because it analyzes how Trump has impacted the discourse surrounding race from a left-leaning perspective. It also analyzes how feelings before Trump about race led to the creation of Donald Trump who could exploit these feelings to his benefit and change the discourse.

1. How big is anti-Trump sentiment?
2. Is it higher in certain geographic areas?
3. How merited is anti-Trump sentiment?
4. How does it vary among social classes/groups?
5. Why does the media dislike Trump?
6. For what reasons does the media like Trump?
7. Why does general public dislike Trump?
8. Do different groups broadly dislike Trump for different reasons?
9. Was our political discourse more substantive before?
10. Why do pro-Trump people support him?
11. What policies of Trump’s do Americans agree with?
12. What percentage of Americans think Trump lies?
13. What was favorability rating of previous presidents?
14. What is Trump’s favorability rating?
15. What policy of Trump’s do Americans agree with most?
16. What percentage of Americans dislike the media?
17. Why were previous presidents liked/disliked?
18. What was political discourse like before?
19. Has the amount of protests increased since Trump?
20. What Trump policy do Americans disagree with most?

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/26/18145305/gun-control-violence-parkland-effect-2018

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/florida-shooting-gun-control-advocates-rush-to-distort-the-truth-about-what-happened-in-parkland

For this post, I will be comparing two news articles about the parkland shooting in 2018, one published by fox news, and the other published by vox. I will be talking about the different approaches they take to talk about the same issue, as well as the different lenses they use to perceive the issue of the parkland shooting and gun control. The vox article is more anti-gun and the fox news article is more pro-gun. This difference in bias manifests itself in the way the articles frame the issue, the information they choose to focus on, and the way they position the opposing side of the argument. One example showing how vox’s bias manifests itself is when it says “But its work did not stop with a march and some protests around the country; the movement, along with other work by other gun control advocacy groups, managed to get major legislative and electoral victories throughout the rest of the year.” The usage of the word victory clearly indicates that it considers more gun regulation to be a positive thing. The information they choose to base their claims on are the statistics it references that show that countries with more gun regulations have less shootings. In the fox news article, their bias of being anti-gun regulation is very clear and easy to identify. This can be easily seen from the way in which it positions the opposing side. In the first line of the article, it states “Gun control advocates are only too sure that they occupy the moral high ground. In the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting that left 17 dead, they are accusing their opponents of having “blood on their hands.” The entire article is framed this way, talking about the misconceptions and flaws of the anti-gun side. The article focuses on stating that the gun regulations will not actually reduce the amount of mass shootings, stating that none of the major mass shootings would have been prevented from the gun regulations currently being advocated for. It then emphasizes that these background checks will create a net negative due to the fact that they are expensive to implement. They also choose to emphasize that this will unfairly target law abiding gun owners. The major difference in how these articles present themselves is what statistics they choose to reference and the information they choose to emphasize. The way their articles are written is a reflection of the different values they hold. I do find resonances with Postman’s characterizations of news media and news production. A lot of the time, people buy the things they believe merely because of the way it is packaged to them, not based on the merits of the argument itself. This can be through a polished news reporter, as the article suggests, or it could be through the use of slanderous rhetoric against the opposing side. The most striking thing about the blue feed red feed project is that it shows that people on opposite sides of the political spectrum live in their echo chambers, where they only hear from their side online. They live in their own reality.

I am very ambivalent to the representations of millennials portrayed in the two articles. I don’t deny that these facts are true. The articles have the data to support their claims. One example is that the TIME magazine article states that 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982.  It is just that this information is not particularly surprising, nor do I find it offensive. According to the definition presented in the TIME magazine article about what a millennial is, I do identify as a millennial (as I fit that age range). However, I do not hold this identity of mine with much weight. It does not mean that much to me to be a millennial. In addition to this, the negative characteristics that are true of millennials broadly are not characteristics I identify with myself. I do not see myself as greedy or entitled. What is reflective of the group is not reflective of myself as an individual. However, some characteristics I do identify with. For example, I identify with Tim, the man who didn’t want to vote because it was too much of a hassle, in the Buzzfeed article. However, I don’t associate this characteristic with me being a millennial. I see it as a personality trait of myself as an individual. Another thing I do identify with is the abundant use of the internet mentioned in the Buzzfeed article.

Thank you for using Blogs@Baruch!

This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start publishing.

You are using a new WordPress theme that places widgets such as “Recent Posts,” “Recent Comments” and “Archives” in the footer, leaving you maximum space for publishing in this central area. If you prefer to have widgets on the right side of this page, these can be added by going to “Widgets” under the “Appearance” tab in your Dashboard. You can also choose from more than 100 other themes from the “Themes” menu in the Dashboard.

My name is Ben Herrera. One of my biggest passions in life is studying about history and geopolitics. Whether it’s through podcasts, movies, or books, I am constantly digesting information about these topics. The image I have attached is one of the globe. I chose this image because it represents my interest in learning about the world and its affairs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=globe&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS803US803&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=1Bd_aKJbPX41WM%253A%252C7k2Gl0rgb21MVM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kRG-bv63v9yDQ47_XGyYRZcoG6M8Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiioYmD5pPgAhUDVN8KHViQC9cQ9QEwAXoECAQQBg#imgrc=6JKJOYEH9wIWrM: