It's an age old story; the once only child becomes an older sibling and is suddenly jealous of the attention the new baby receives. This same situation appears to be happening in grand scale with the states of New Jersey and Florida, with the Republican presidential race in the role of the new baby.
On October 29 two articles concerning republican presidential candidates were released, both serious requests. The first was addressed to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, written by the Sun Sentinel. This article, “Marco Rubio should resign, not rip us off”, called for the resignation of the young Republican Senator. Some of their reasons included a source who is a friend of Rubio's saying that he hated his job, the 59 senate votes Rubio has missed, and the $174,000 salary that Rubio receives.
The second article was written by the New York Times and entitled, “Gov. Christie, Time to Go Home”. The Editorial Board began by stating that it is the time of the campaign for the underdogs to drop out, and included Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. The article described his performance in the recent GOP debate as “barely there”. It also listed a number of shortcomings on the Governor’s part that make him unfit to be president, including “his role in New Jersey’s budget crisis, betrayal on affordable housing and the interlocking scandals on his watch, from Bridgegate to ‘the chairman’s flight’”.
Both Sen. Rubio and Gov. Christie's home states seem to feel forgotten, or at least the media is portraying them that way.
In AP Gov we have been learning that the media has three main roles in the world of politics: gatekeeper, scorekeeper, and watchdog. The two articles exemplify the third role of the watchdog.
I do not keep up with all the political news (I don't have time- I'm an AP student) but before this past week I don't recall hearing very much about Sen. Rubio lacking as a senator or as Gov. Christie just being unfit to be president. In this way the media has acted as the watchdog, bringing criticism and doubt upon the candidates. What is meaningful about this new development in the media is that many potential voters get their information about politics from the internet, and some who may not have previously thought badly of Rubio or Christie, or who may have even been in support of one or the other, could be having second thoughts.
Both editorial stories are also on the sensationalist side. The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board claimed that Rubio is ripping them off for accepting a $174,000 salary when he is not doing his job. They portrayed him not only as a swindler but as a hypocrite, who criticized workers from the Department of Veterans Affairs for not doing their jobs. Of course, they also added in that he basically hates his job as a senator. In the New York Times the Editorial Board pointed to "interlocking scandals on his watch, from Bridgegate to ‘the chairman’s flight’”. These are all examples of sensationalism, using the most exciting, juicy details to snag a reader's attention. Unfortunately, it is these sensationalist tidbits that do draw readers in, and I would venture to guess more people will focus on these details than other objective information they may hear.
There is not clear evidence that Rubio and Christie's home states are truly jealous of all the attention their respective candidates are giving to the race, or if it is simply the editorial boards of two newspapers who think so. Regardless, the news is out, and voters are reading, watching, and thinking.
To read the article about Sen. Rubio, click here:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-editorial-rubio-bush-gs1028-20151027-story.html
You don't have time as an AP student?!?! What?!?!? lol
ReplyDelete