Laurence Zhang's AP GOPO
0 view | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Laurence Zhang!

BY 4/3 -- READ SCOOP INSTRUCTIONS BELOW -- Death of the White House Press Corps

BY 4/3 -- READ SCOOP INSTRUCTIONS BELOW -- Death of the White House Press Corps | Laurence Zhang's AP GOPO |
With a Twitter-savvy president and their own ailing media companies, Lloyd Grove finds the boys in the briefing room more depressed than ever.
Laurence Zhang's insight:

1. Record the article's date.


2. Define press corp.

A group of journalists and media correspondents stationed in the White House who cover events and announcements by the president..

3. Explain "filterless presidency".

When the White House can directly communicate messages to the public without going through a 3rd party media source.

4. Record the number of Obama's CURRENT social media followers -- Twitter & Facebook.

Twitter: 42.3 million Facebook: 39 million

5. In three sentences state the author's concern.

He is concerned that the role of the press corp is becoming almost nonexistent with the rapid increase in use of media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. He feels that the president can now avoid talking about hard topics by placing less focus on press conferences. He believes that the voice of the president is becoming more and more accepted without being questioned.

6. In five sentences, provide your opinion. Use info from the article. Use this scale and provide a numeric score to reflect your opinion:

1 = Not at all concerned

2 = Somewhat concerned

3 = Concerned

4 = Very concerned

5 = Extremely concerned


I am a 1, or Not at all concerned. I feel like it is a good thing that the president is able to communicate directly with the public, because it doesn't allow for the media to twist his words into something else. It allows him to get his messages across in a way that is easiest for Americans to understand, because his words are not being taken out of context. I feel like the writer is exaggerating the issue. Times are changing, and Facebook, Twitter, and many other outlets for news and information are the way things are being done, and if he has a problem with it then he just has to learn to adapt like everyone else.

Colin Shi's curator insight, April 4, 2014 11:09 PM

1. April 3, 2010

2. The white house press corps is the group in charge of media coverage of the president, that interprets and presents the president's image to the public.

3. The president can directly present himself to the public without a middleman that filters and interprets the information.

4. 42.4 million followers on Twitter, 39 million likes on facebook

5. The author is concerned that the job of the white house press corps is going obsolete. This trend may have significant consequences because the president will likely present himself with a personal bias, sometimes even called a "hagiography". Not having press conferences also presents a problem because it will no longer give the public a clear picture of the president.

6. I am pretty concerned about an age in which the president is able to present himself freely to the public. I feel that the president's use of social media outlets to communicate often gives us an attitude of insincerity. With this lack of professionalism, traditional values unravel, and the general public loses trust in the president. One may argue that the media filter distorts his message, but provided that they have reliable expertise, they should still be able to do the job better than the president himself. Although bias is prevalent regardless of who presents the president in the media, having an outside source should mitigate bias to some extent. Score: 3.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:44 PM

1. 4/3/14

2. Media correspondents and journalists deployed in the White House who's job is to cover events and announcements by the POTUS.

3. A filterless Presidency is when the Whitehouse can directly communicate with the public without a 3rd party in media.

4. Obama currently has 42.3 million Twitter followers, and 39 Million Facebook Followers.

5.The Author's concern is that the Press Corp's niche is dissapearing due to social Media such as Twitter and Facebook. This means that the President can dictate the direction of the conversation, instead of being asked questions by the media. The author fears that this will lead to the President becoming too favorably viewed and unquestioned.

6. I am a (2), only somewhat concerned. A very large part of Obama's appeal is his charisma. The Press Corp will be the most upset about it, and that is fine by me. I believe this will at least be positive in the sense that the President will have a more personal dialogue with the American Public. This is an adaptation of the Obama Administration to keep up with the times.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 11:10 AM

1. 04.03.10

2. Members of President Obama's staff that would typically cover his actions and deal with public relations

3. A Presidency where there is an unprecedented level of transparency

4. Facebook: 39,767,002

Twitter: 42.4M

5. President Obama is a unique President in how he addressed social media. Not only does he want to a lot of PR himself, but this puts his Press Corps  in danger. He strays away from the norm of other presidents.

6. (1) President Obama was elected for his first term for his connection that he made with the youth. Not only was he able to have the youth come out and vote, although they typically wouldn't, but he also gained the support of African Americans to vote as well. This is extremely strategic in how he was first elected. This trait if being personable is a trait that wouldn't necessarily be something needed by other Presidents, thus the need for the Press Corps to exist. However just because they roles and jobs may be in danger doesn't mean that any concern should exist. 

Rescooped by Laurence Zhang from AP Government & Politics!

BY 4/3 -- 5 celebs who sold Obamacare best

BY 4/3 -- 5 celebs who sold Obamacare best | Laurence Zhang's AP GOPO |
The White House has recruited more than 40 celebrities, and some of their moms, to encourage Americans to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. These celebs sold it best.

Via Teresa Herrin
Laurence Zhang's insight:

Good way to gather public support for the ACA. Unfortunately Americans are signing up not because they believe in the program but because the people they look up to are.

Colin Shi's curator insight, April 5, 2014 4:23 PM

These five celebrities have successfully promoted the Affordable Care Act. While effective, these means are often frowned upon because they seem more like doing a commercial for a piece of government legislation, and should be counted as propaganda. You should be going for the product, not the celebrity name.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:53 PM

This is a very intelligent and effective way for the President to endorse and the Affordable Care Act, as well as gain the public's admiration. This reaches out to the young demographic, especially.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:53 AM

President Obama's attempt to gain support for the ACA by having famous celebrities like Ellen and Jennifer Hudson support it, help the ACA reach its goal. As the younger generation would be the population that would pay the most in the system for the proportion that they take out, then President Obama aiming to have the younger generation join with the support of celebrities is very strategic.

Scooped by Laurence Zhang!

BY 4/3 -- Supreme Court strikes down limits on campaign donations

BY 4/3 -- Supreme Court strikes down limits on campaign donations | Laurence Zhang's AP GOPO |
A split Supreme Court Wednesday strikes down limits on the total amount of money an individual may spend on political candidates, parties and political action committees but keeps limits per candidate and per committee.
Laurence Zhang's insight:

I disagree with this decision. This will only allow the wealthy more power and take power and voice away from the majority of the population. More and more people will be disinclined to participate in politics because they believe that because they cannot afford to donate, their voice will not be heard.

Henry's comment, April 2, 2014 5:01 PM
I would agree with McCutcheon because an individual should have the right to donate as much money as they want to candidates that they support and shouldn't be limited to it. Limiting them to a certain amount of donation violates the first amendment of freedom of speech and I totally hella against that.
Colin Shi's curator insight, April 2, 2014 7:26 PM

I agree with McCutcheon's decision to donate as much as he wants because this is a completely legitimate way to show support for a candidate. The donation amounts are all public information, so it's not like this is illegal activity. The amount you give is proportional to the amount of support you have, although there could be given limitations of financial resources for some candidates. 

Benjamin Dischinger's curator insight, April 3, 2014 10:28 PM

I feel that there should not be any limits set on the amount of money one person can give because when it comes down to it, money plays an important part in the game of politics, but in the end it's not the money that wins elections. What wins elections is the drive of the candidates to make a better place for their constituents and their non-constituents alike. 

Scooped by Laurence Zhang!

BY 4/3 -- Obama's Tuesday's Address about ACA Enrollments (NBC News Video)

BY 4/3 -- Obama's Tuesday's Address about ACA Enrollments (NBC News Video) | Laurence Zhang's AP GOPO |
Watch the latest news videos and episodes of the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. - NBC News
Laurence Zhang's insight:

Questions still remain regarding Obamacare and its implications for Americans in the next several years. I disagree with Obama's making of the comments about history not being in favor of those that deny Americans basic economic stability. His words are a severe exaggeration of his opponent's arguments.

Colin Shi's curator insight, April 4, 2014 11:34 PM

At this moment, president Obama is extremely pleased about the progress in the Affordability Care Act since last October. More than 7 million have signed up, and many problems, both technical and logistical, have been diagnosed since the launch. Obama sees this progress positively and accuses Republicans for obstructing progress, that history only remembers those who promote progress. Obama, like any politician, but remain confident in his own agenda, even though he may know the program is overly complicated, and has a huge potential for chaos in the coming years.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:56 PM

With 7.1 million sign-ups at, it appears that Obama is recovering from his disastrous opening. It is still unclear if enough young, healthy people have signed up, in order to balance the healthcare budget. What he really needs now, though, is Democratic support.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:32 AM

Healthcare is a basic human right guaranteed by the United Nation's Deceleration of Human Rights. At the point that the United States is one of the only developed nations in the world that doesn't have a universal healthcare system, the 3 million people that got Medicare through Obamacare allows the US to reach this goal.

Scooped by Laurence Zhang!

BY 4/3 -- Ruling on limits means campaign contributions could soar (great graphic)

BY 4/3 -- Ruling on limits means campaign contributions could soar (great graphic) | Laurence Zhang's AP GOPO |
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned an additional limit on the aggregate amount that an individual could give to candidates, party committees and PACs. Here's what it changes.
Laurence Zhang's insight:

US Supreme Court's new ruling allows for individuals to donate to as many candidates as they want. I disagree with their ruling. This will only lead to money playing a larger role in politics.

Connor Carter's curator insight, April 2, 2014 8:07 PM

I believe that with this new piece of legislation, the wealthy will have more control over the election process, therefore making the powerful more powerful and denying the poor a voice in political decision-making.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:47 AM

The ability for someone to pay for multiple candidates gives particular parties more power over others. I believe this will disproportionately support the Republican party as I would tend to lean towards the assumption that Republicans are typically the "Top 10%" and would thus be more likely to donate more money to have a politician support their point of view. 

Scooped by Laurence Zhang!

BY 4/3 -- Everything you need to know about McCutcheon v. FEC

BY 4/3 -- Everything you need to know about McCutcheon v. FEC | Laurence Zhang's AP GOPO |
A giant campaign finance case gets decided.
Laurence Zhang's insight:

A republican guy from Alabama believes that he should be able to donate however much he wants to his candidates and that the limits placed on the donation amount (as set in the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act) are a violation of the First Amendment. It is not clear what the Supreme Court will decide, but if they vote to remove the limits, the role of money will play an even larger role in the game of politics. 

Liang Xiao's curator insight, April 4, 2014 12:12 AM

The case is about the Campaign donation limitation. People can only donate limit amount of money for certain candidate right now, which around $2500. McCutcheon, a business man stated that the limitation of campaign donation was violation to the first Amendment, which about the free expression. He said that donation was part of people's right of expressing. For my own opnions, I don't support the idea which take out the limitation of donation. It will increase the power of rich, which they can be more influential than weak. I think it break the balance between people.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 7:09 PM

McCutcheon says laws setting donation limits are a violation of the First Amendment: Free Speech and Expression. Backed by the Republican National Committee, he opposes the notion the FEC argues, that the laws are there to protect against corruption. This may very well be the next Citizens United.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:28 AM

After having a debate topic on the implications of Citizens United v FCC last January on the impacts of political process, a similar court case intrigues me. While I feel like the implications of Citizens United v FCC gave more ground and power in regards to the wealthy having power.