In media today, President Trump and his entire administration have been making drastically big changes for this nation. From his recently instated immigration reform to his wary relationship with Europe and involvement with NATO. Some view his actions as a total disembodiment of our nation’s government, while others see it as a well-needed change of scenery. Donald Trump is our country’s new President, and I think it is my best interest to know what changes he is making day to day. If treaties are bound and broken, that affects me. If the education system is altered indefinitely, that too affects me. As the people, we have a right to know what Donald Trump is doing in office and why he is doing it. Without knowledge we have nothing, and that is not acceptable to me.
Left (Extreme Liberalist):
Title: “It will not get better”: Former Bush administration official has a warning about President Trump’s administration
Author: Matthew Rozsa
Salon is a well-known, considerably up-to-par news source, but its point of view is easily recognizable. The above article, posted on January 31st, emphasizes former appointees from the Bush campaign’s unapologetic points of view toward the newly elect, Donald Trump. Choosing this particular topic portrays their standpoint on the political spectrum on its own. This title blatantly bashes President Trump, continuing through the piece as Eliot Cohen, former counselor to Secretary of State, explains that his “poor character and choice of advisors will ‘probably end in calamity.'” This piece is made entirely of hateful comments and expectancies sprawled onto Trump. Consider the type of words used to describe Trump, in this article; they label him as “the dangerous new president.” The word “dangerous” subconsciously gives a negative connotation to Trump, portraying him as the bad guy in this article. A conservative news outlet such as the Wall Street Journal might use what Cohen said to insult his forthcomings or bring up his past faults to discredit his point of view; it may not partake in this topic of discussion at all.
Left (Moderate Liberalist):
Title: Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump
Outlet: Washington Post
Author: Juliet Eilperin, Lisa Rein, and Marc Fisher
The Washington Post also speaks to the issue of “is Trump unfit for office” with their piece describing the internal affairs inside the white house. While being a news outlet for the liberalist side of the argument for all including Trump’s controversial actions, this article possesses more of an informational approach rather than one of the disapprovements of Trump’s decisions. It begins by explaining the concerns portrayed by the federal workers who feel that the substance of their work is at risk because of his agenda. Certain words are repetitively used such as ‘retaliate’ and ‘pushback,’ suggesting the unsettling feeling being expressed by current affairs going on within the system. Many workers are going as far as to leak information regarding Trump’s plans to reshape the government, hoping that this will influence the public to retaliate against him. Like most outlets, a source is provided to help emphasize how important and discussed a certain topic is, whether it is about the majority or not. President Obama’s former Assistant Secretary of State, Tom Malinowski, stated: “there’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security.” This statement shows the most in-depth liberalist view throughout the entire article, specifically with the sarcastic response of the fear Trump’s actions have inflicted upon the masses.
Title: European Union president trashes Trump as ‘threat’
Outlet: CNN Politics
Author: Nicole Gaouette
CNN Politics covered the ongoing Trump controversy with an adlib from the European Union President Donald Tusk, a man who is not finding amusement in the recent actions of Trump and his newly appointed Cabinet officers. With CNN being a neutral party in the view of political theory, its stories are meant to be pure informants of ongoing affairs within the news without adding opinionated concepts. Donald Tusk discusses how Trump’s impulses for his actions derive from past deal made with the EU as a “businessman,” damaging the nation’s solidity in its alliance with Europe. He has also provided Russia with an advantage, weakening NATO because of his rocky past with what was once one of the U.S.’s strongest allies. With the given information provided, it is evident to see how straightforward the article is kept as to prevent bias towards either side of the spectrum. For instance, one of the primary individuals inflicting this change is Trump’s chief strategist Stephen Bannon, director of Breitbart News (a conservative platform). Although it states that he has influenced much of the tension between these two, there is no negative or positive wording coming from Gauoette to insinuate a potential opinion on the subject. If he were to include a negative annotation about how the influence of Bannon was destructive or how it provides us with a better incentive for being self-sufficient, then it could be considered slightly left-leaning or right-leaning.
Neutral (Slightly Liberalist):
Title: Anger towards Donald Trump spreading through Europe
Outlet: CBS News
Author: Mark Phillips
CBS News happened to cover the same story about the EU President’s feelings on the abrupt changes that Trump has made in relevance to his neglect of support to NATO and his reliability as an ally in Europe. The main issue discussed in this particular article was Donald Trump’s unwillingness to communicate with the United States own allies. The immigrant reform that was enlisted a few days ago caught EU officials off guard to the extent that has them worried whether or not remaining loyal to the U.S. is in their best interest. Phillips explains how Europe describes President Trump and his administration as a threat to its existence. This article is considered to be neutral, yet has many negatively positioned views about Trump, going as far as to label him “wretched” and “bigoted.” In doing this, this neutral news outlet gradually becomes liberal due to the input of opinion on the given topic in discussion. If they were to stay factual and purely quote-based, this could still be considered a neutral article. Although the other unbiased article written byCNN Politics included input regarding Breitbart News, the author in no way made bashful comments about Breitbart, other than stating that their source told CNN that they were inherently spreading lies about their current situation.
Right (Moderately Conservative):
Title: Are These Anti-Trump Morons Trying To Get Donald Trump Elected
RedState is known for its opinion-based blog forum, and this piece by Streiff surely has a high opinion. Even though being a traditional paper and allegedly being “pro-Trump,” RedState has taken a somewhat annoyed position with both parties that it’s discussing. It begins with discrediting Trump’s supporters due to their negligence of composure. The entire conversation is based on how Donald Trump acts with his followers, stating his “propensity to play the role of the little, loud-mouthed sixth grader on the sidelines inciting others to fight.” Using phrases like “loud-mouthed” and comparing him to a sixth-grader diminish his name down to such a level of immaturity that one might believe him to be the weak president that this article is making him out to be. As the article continues, the mentality of Trump supporters is brought into question, mainly because of the amount of violence and problems they inflict during Trump rallies and other public events. It was also recorded that these groups inherently cause more harm than people protesting against Trump. Although RedState is meant to be a conservative source, it doesn’t quite live up to those standards. The entire article is a complaint about the attention that Trump brings along with what he calls his supporters. This could even be mistaken for a liberal piece due to the negative comments and insults about this specific subject.
Right (Also Highly Conservative):
Title: Liberal journalists are biggest losers in Trump victory
Outlet: Fox News
Author: Rich Noyes
Fox News, also known for its renowned journalism in conservative affairs, bases it’s story directly on their opposition, liberalist news. From the title you can assume where this piece is headed, it begins with amending Trump on his victory of becoming president “despite a massive effort by the liberal media establishment” to provide enough negative insight that voters would see them and reconsider their stand. Then it takes the racial standpoint that many felt during the race and quotes a CBS writer, Jamelle Bouie, to say that Trump’s winning was ten steps being taken backward. It continues and discusses other news outlets such as MSNBC, ABC, CNN, andNBC adding “cynical” insight into the matter. Saying that these companies were “slamming” him, providing “false statements,” and saying that “this kind of thinking” is purely “dangerous corruption of the news media’s role in our system.” The basis of this article was to discredit anything said from any past liberal outlets. In their conclusion to their piece, they explain how liberalism news sources have created “permanent damage to their credibility,” suggesting to any readers that those particular companies should not be trusted. By calling out the left-leaning side of this spectrum, Fox News has displayed its position on the conservative stand. Without these varied opinions and points of view on related topics, one may never fully grasp the entire picture, but in turn, purely understanding one side may alter someone’s opinion as well because that becomes all that an individual knows.