Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Women's March Coverage: How Objective was the Media?

By Monica Martinez-Jimenez

Coverage on the Women's March was predominantly positive although some national media outlets had more extensive coverage than others. Articles on the New York Times concerning the Women's march were not difficult to find whereas articles on Fox News were scarce.

There were several media outlets such as the Los Angeles Times that went so far as to criticize Fox News for not having enough coverage on the Women's March. The Los Angeles Times did not include their criticism of Fox News in their opinion section, but rather in their entertainment and television section. 

However, many of the articles that Fox News did present on their webpage concerning the Women's March were opinion pieces. Appropriately, the articles were designated as opinion pieces but most were critical of certain aspects of the Women's March. 

American news outlets were more subjective with news coverage than international news outlets such as BBC News, The Guardian and Russia Today. 

The Guardian focused on providing information regarding the Women's March and BBC News was careful enough to primarily use quotes in reporting on the turnout at the Women's March in London. 


New York Times:

Fox News:

Los Angeles Times:

BBC News:

Russia Today:

The Guardian: 

Trump's Inauguration

One of the main topics that I found to be interesting in when covering President Trump’s inauguration was the contrast that on what can be said about the attendance. Including the fallout that was caused by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

Fox News being the more conservative news front discussed the issue of the how it was handled and not any actual numbers. Claimed that Spicer was just rattled by being in the first day and how he should have handled it. Labeled Spicer as competent at his position and that he needs that continue to push back on press.

CNN’s coverage of the event was primarily on the numbers and comparison of the past inauguration of Bush and Obama. Stating that Trump’s inauguration numbers were lower than Obama’s and why the numbers were that way. It provided good context.

The University Star didn’t have much deep coverage of the inauguration. Though the Star considered to focus on the student population’s opinion of the change in presidents and the performance by the Strutters at the inauguration.

In social media predominantly Twitter there was many different views towards the inauguration. Variety labeled it the “Most Live-Stream to Date”, but most displayed humorous backlash at Trump’s staff scrambling to correct themselves. Like this tweet from Ally Gans or this tweet from actor John Leguizamo.

Trump’s inaugural addresses

I decided to look at how some news outlets reacted to Trump’s inaugural addresses.

The New York Post pointed out that Trump’s speech was the shortest speech since Jimmy Carter. I thought it was interesting that they focused on this aspect. The article also quotes from his speech and mentions his tweets while adding commentary.

The BCC sounds scared of Trump’s speech. They compare it to the speech of Bane, the villain in the Dark Knight movie. They believe the speech pretty much sets the tone of his presidency; unlike anything Washington has seen before. They also mentioned his tweets, making sure to point out that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke tweeted multiple times in favor of Trump's speech.

Fox News reacted to Trump’s speech by reacting to the backlash from it. Upset more from social media posting of anger and sadness, the article asks, more or less, “Why voice how upset you are through online outlets?” It’s an interesting take on the speech because it address and criticizes citizens rather than Trump. Unlike the other articles, it merely says that inauguration was a great peaceful transfer of power.