Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Just hours after the end of the midterm elections, President Trump asked Attorney General, Jeff Sessions to resign. Trump had been toying with the idea of firing Sessions since he recused himself from the Russian investigation but found that doing so would only add fire to the flames of suspicion from the public and Congress. As a result, Trump took it upon himself to publically humiliate, undermine and discredit Sessions at his rallies, on his twitter and even in interviews with large media channels. However, after some thought Trump and his administration find a date they can fire Sessions: after the midterms. They see this as a natural time to fire anyone in the cabinet as it is halfway through the term and any President may be inclined to make staff changes so Trump calls for Session to resign from the cabinet effective immediately. With the Russian investigation heating up it is evident that the President is desperate to regain control and firing Sessions and naming a new Attorney General that will help turn the investigation in his favor. I have chosen three stories that discuss the firing (or resigning) of Jeff Sessions; one from the New York Times titled, a story by CNN and the last coverage I chose is from National Public Radio. I chose these three media sources because they represent a print media, a news channel (TV) media, and the radio. This will allow me to analyze the differences of coverage across media types as well as slight media bias based on channel. I believe that there will be a correlation between these pieces that is critical of the President’s decision but the rhetoric they use, frame they take and audience appeal to will be different due to their different publication type and different key audiences.
The New York Times article titled, “Jeff Sessions is Forced Out as Attorney General as Trump Installs Loyalist” takes a quick stance on the issue. I chose to find an article on the event from the New York Times due to their international relevance and credibility despite overall decline of print media (Troise and Durbin 2018). The “New York Times” effect is the idea that most publications on a local, state, national and international level look to the New York Times for their stories and information. If the New York Times reports something it is more than likely deemed credible and will be seen in other papers across the world (Rossi).
In the article they first identify whomever the successor may be as a “loyalist” whose beliefs on the special investigation align with those of the President. Then they name the acting Attorney General and give some background. Matthew Whitaker is a one-time Senate candidate and who published an op-ed in CNN questioning the reach of the special investigation. The article is definitely taking an informative stance on the events that unfold with the firing and reassignment of the case but I think they also give a slight slant to it. By presenting Whitaker first as a Trump “loyalist” even before reporting his name they have seemingly tried to discredit him. This is where their informative coverage comes off as more of a “watchdog” of democracy. After the initial shade of bias the article does return to its informative role. They describe the Democratic party’s reaction to the new appointment and what it would mean for the justice department if Whitaker doesn’t recuse himself as well. They explain that the ethics committee could get involved and how both Republican and Democratic representatives are reacting to the change in staff and its timing. They reference quotes from Republican senators like Lindsey Graham who had previously been against the firing of Sessions and are now onboard. As well as Adam Schiff of California calling the move a “constitutional crisis.” The New York Times is usually an objective media source, in my opinion. There is some obvious demographic bias based on the fact the paper is located in a massive metropolitan area which can contribute to the types of views and opinions that the authors might have but other than in opinion columns, bias is relatively mitigated. The writing style is to the point and that is evident in this piece. The author provides a bit of insight into what the repercussions of this decision could be so that provides an interpretative aspect but it generally informs the reader of the event and its significance.
The CNN story on their website discusses the event in an attempt to inform but slightly more on the watchdog side of the issue. CNN as new outlet is known to be a left-wing national new broadcast. With the sensationalization of our politics CNN has seemed to be one of the most sensationalized broadcasts of them all. It has become more and more left-leaning as its counterpart Fox has become more and more right-leaning. CNN takes a usual stance against President Trump which is consistent in their report on the resignation of Sessions. The title is a quip “Jeff Sessions out as Attorney General” is just the beginning of their brevity and slant of bias. With sentences like “Sessions received the request to resign from Kelly, not the President, on Wednesday morning, an administration official said,” are slight digs at the professionalism of the way the situation was handled. It also highlights the squabbles that Sessions and Trump had over the near two years he was Attorney General.
CNN is good at reporting relevant stories but they don’t have an affinity to be objective. They tend to only contribute to polarized feelings by painting stories in a left-leaning light and rarely providing an opposing point of view. Objectivity is essential to good journalism- to an extent, in my opinion, after sharing the facts clearly I think its important to shine light on the issue and explain the implications. However, CNN can take this to an apocalyptic level causing panic in its viewers. In this article I don’t think they push it to quite the apocalyptic end but they do make it clear what their opinion is of Sessions, the President, Whitaker, Republicans and the situation as a whole. Their coverage differs from the New York Times article because it does share their opinion in a much more obvious light. Aside from the written piece the video at the top of the article is an extensive dive into Jeff Sessions background which paints him as a racist Trump Supporter and fails to highlight other positive aspects until the end when they point out his sense of duty to his job regardless of Trump’s attitude. It also differs from the New York Times article by highlighting tweets throughout this specific coverage. The headers: “Jeff Sessions out as Attorney General”, “Trump constantly criticizes Sessions”, “Democrats demand continued independence for Mueller”, and “Immigration bonded him with Trump from the start” all seem to point to one side of the story. The article fleshes out these standpoints but fails, like the video, to address the opposing side of the argument or what a similar event from another administration would have looked like.
The lack of clear objectivity is mitigated well in coverage done by National Public Radio. In a radio episode on November 7th called “Jeff Sessions forced out as Attorney General after constant criticism from Trump” they cover the forced resignation of Sessions. Using audio clips from their host as well as clips from Trump interviews berating Sessions in the beginning of the episode they set up a clear argument. Trump was displeased with Sessions for recusing himself, tension grows, he finds his opportunity and asks for the resignation. Early on in the episode we have the clear facts of the situation given to us as well as some background on the issue. NPR as a whole is known for being a trustworthy news source that doesn’t report “fake news.” Its role as a media outlet is definitely well facilitated by the fact that it is a public platform and doesn thave to achieve private rate incentives but it does still struggle for funding. As a result of their public status though they are much less inclined to give into the entertainment aspect that helps push our media so far into sensationalism.
There really isn’t much of a frame to discuss with this report of the incident because they are generally objective but there is always some way to view an issue. The NPR episode definitely frames it as a n issue that should incite thoughtfulness for what is to come with the Russian investigation and the motives behind the forced resignation. They are coming down as a watch dog but on a much more informative side as the other two sources I have mentioned. This is to be expected if you know much about the private and public media sectors. Obviously the public media receive government funding and wouldn’t want to cause issues regarding a republican decision with a republican controlled government.
As far as objectivity I think that NPR holds true to that goal. They have a section describing Sessions achievements and what he has accomplished as Attorney General, calling him “one of the most successful cabinet members in the Trump Administration” in regards to his ability to push the Trump immigration agenda and other new policies. They explain how he led the Trump agenda to lower crime rates and reference what he claims responsibility for in his resignation letter. This provides a clearer look into the opposing side of the story- and event he opposing side of the issue in general. Instead of just hearing that Trump forced his resignation and linking the letter they provide details of his work and reasons he may not have been failing to complete his duties in actuality. They tend to leave the comments that insinuate consequence to the guests on the show but even still they cover the facts and if they go to far outside of being objective they try to rein them back in. They too use subheadings to describe what aspects of the coverage they will be spearheading throughout the attached article but they too are more representative of the entire issue than just one side unlike CNN’s subheadings.
I chose to highlight a newspaper, television, and radio media’s coverage of the Jeff Sessions resignation because all three publications bring something new to the table. The three types reach different audiences of different ages on a local, state, national and international level without looking at how impactful these specific publications are. Analyzing how the New York Times, CNN, and NPR report the same story provides interesting insight into where bias among citizens can come from. Certain age groups, genders, and social classes have access to these different media but do they always consume it? If so which are they more likely to consume? Will they cross reference their sources to be sure they are getting clear information? Unfortunately, it isn’t likely that someone who watches CNN is crossing it with Fox or CBS. Someone who regularly reads the New York Times might also consume television media but it is not likely that they tune into NPR or other radio stations on a consistent basis. It is interesting to note that the publication perceived to be the most objective is also probably the least consumed outlet of the three. American citizens like the entertainment aspect of broadcast media and it is easy for them to consume nowadays especially with social media. The New York Times has an international effect and is widely respected as a publication with objective journalism with a slight slant of insight towards being a watchdog. CNN is a known liberal television media source with private revenue who has to incentivize their viewers to watch by adding in that sensationalized entertainment that can cause mass panic. NPR is a great option that is widely accessible and provides an informative view of the relevant issues our country faces today with limited bias as it is a public media source.
Each of these platforms reaches millions of people and each of these platforms takes its own approach in reporting the Jeff Sessions story. Noting these differences and looking for them in future can help the viewer/reader/listener pick up on bias and break through the insight to find the facts and in turn form their own opinion.
Works Cited
- Troise and Durbin 2018
- Baker, P., Benner, K., & Michael. (2018, November 07). Jeff Sessions Is Forced Out as Attorney General as Trump Installs Loyalist. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/us/politics/sessions-resigns.html
- Jarrett, L., & Watkins, E. (2018, November 08). Jeff Sessions out as attorney general. Retrieved November 11, 2018, from https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/sessions-resign/index.html
- Johnson, C. (2018, November 07). Jeff Sessions Forced Out As Attorney General After Constant Criticism From Trump. Retrieved November 11, 2018, from https://www.npr.org/2018/11/07/539109386/jeff-sessions-out-as-attorney-general-after-steady-drumbeat-of-criticism-from-tr
- Rossi, A. (Director). (2011, September 29). Page one – Inside the New York Times[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1787777/
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.