Over the last eight years, a growing outcry has come up
regarding then-President Obama’s use of executive orders to circumvent Congress
to move his policies forward. This led to debates about the constitutionality
of executive orders to conspiracy theorists claiming that Obama would not leave
the White House voluntarily when the time came. While no regime preservation
such as has happened in various African countries over the last few decades
have occurred, I was interested in finding out what the take on things would be
once President Trump began using that same tool to run the government and
promote his agenda to achieve his campaign promises.
Beyond basic orders to formally nominate various cabinet
members and other day-to-day functional orders, Trump has issued several
executive orders. Among them was a memorandum to initiate the United States’
withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, commonly referred to as the TPP.
Another was a hiring freeze for most federal agencies, with the exclusion of
the military or other positions necessary for national security. A third
to-date was an order preventing federal funding being paid out to organizations
that support or promote abortions in other countries. Finally, an order was
issued to relieve some of the costs incurred by the Affordable Cara Act.
I compared coverage of the executive orders provided by five
different news organizations. Fox News, National Public Radio, USA Today, BBC
and the Austin American Statesman.
NPR’s coverage seemed mostly fair, but there were a few things
that could have improved. Their coverage called Trump’s order to pull out of
the TPP “mostly symbolic” but failed to explain why it was symbolic or what
exactly the impact of the order would be. NPR did not discuss the other two
orders extensively, and both seem to be very relevant. The hiring freeze is
important because it impacts the federal budget and unemployment in larger
cities throughout the country. The second is important and certainly newsworthy
considering the recent women’s marches which have focused on a woman’s right to
choose. In short, more detail could have been provided regarding the TPP and a
longer discussion is needed for both of the other orders. NPR did an excellent
job on the ACA order though, explaining in detail how the order would or could
impact the law.
Fox News’ coverage was superior when it came to providing
quotes from knowledgeable people regarding Trump’s orders. It referred to
statements by Senator John McCain, a pro-choice nonprofit and a pro-life
nonprofit. Their statements were somewhat inaccurate/misleading as it said at
first that the executive order regarding abortion funding banned federal funds
from going to international groups that “perform” abortions, when the order
actually eliminates the option for funding for those that even encourage
abortion, with no real definition for what the order (basically the enforcement
of a Reagan-era law) considers encouragement. The hiring freeze was barely
discussed. Most of the coverage went towards the TPP withdrawal. I would have
liked to see a Democrat’s viewpoint shown in the story as well. I’m certain
that Senators Sanders and Warren would have been willing to provide a quote or
have made statements about all of the issues Trump’s orders impact. Fox also
made it a point to compare Trump’s policies with Obama’s in a manner that
seemed to be slightly biased in favor of a Republican agenda.
USA Today’s reporting seemed less biased than Fox News’
coverage and more detailed than NPR’s, but the trend towards focusing on the
TPP and its impact continued. Barely anything was noted regarding the abortion
issue.
The BBC also focused on the TPP, which makes a great deal
more sense for them. While comparing coverage, I tried to find stories that
covered the issue at hand on the same level. However, the BBC focused almost
exclusively on the TPP. This is most likely because, as a foreign-based press
agency, they’re going to be most interested in the international impacts of
Trump’s presidency as a whole.
The Statesman focused its coverage on the executive order
impacting the ACA. The others had some mention, but for the most part the
Statesman was the most focused on this issue. This makes sense considering
their readership is mostly the “island of blue in a sea of red” that is Central
Texas, and their audience is going to be more concerned about their health
insurance than the other issues. The story was more about the individual
consumer than about a global impact.
Over all, most of the stories could have been written better.
From what I could see, USA Today’s coverage seemed to be the most thorough and
fair. Fox News’ coverage appeared to be the most biased, and NPR’s coverage was
the most lacking in detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment