The United States Presidential Elections

The recently concluded and controversial American Presidential elections, has aroused a heated debated of the alleged interference by Russian agents. The yet to be substantiated allegations have aroused the interests of both the local and foreign media power houses – with each reporting the same issue albeit using a different coverage and analytical methodology. Never before in the American political history has an election aroused suspicion of such magnitude.  . In fact, the issue has raised the ambivalence between self-preservation and fact-finding – making it more and more twisted. As such, this paper aims at analyzing the various approaches used to address the issue by various media houses. Although media houses uses different approaches to report and analyze the Russian meddling allegations, a scrutiny of the content, style, and discourse will always conflate to the same point.

The allegations of Russia’s meddling with the United States presidential elections have a great impact. And as a result, many of the interested parties who have been mentioned have either denied the allegations, shifted the blame, and partly acknowledged the presence of a problem. Reporting for the Vox News, Coaston in the article, “Trump’s new “blame Obama” approach to Russian election meddling, explained” inter alia notes that, now that there are legal attempts to punish those responsible, Trump’s most loyal supporters have conceded that something did happen. Further, the reporter states that the supporters are quick to issue a rejoinder stating that the evidence or the concession did not implicate the president elect, Donald Trump. Instead, the news desk reports indicate that the evidence incriminated former president, Barack Obama. The report which passionately refers to the Trump’s loyalists as the right, seems to be pro the administration. Perhaps, the coverage by the media is concerned more with self-preservation that fact-finding.  

On the other hand, the New York times seems to be more critical of the administration. The powerful media house uses very strong words that evoke the interests of the reader into the possibility that the allegations could be very true. For instance, when describing one of the potentially crucial witnesses in the mêlée, the news agency describes her as having close ties to a powerful Russian oligarch. The emphasis of the power of the oligarch elicits the possibility of the Russian’s having the power to meddle with the US elections. The reporting over emphasizes the presence of close ties and connections within the powers that be; and people who it seems to insinuate that are capable of doing a thing or two that can interfere with the domestic affairs of the United States. Nonetheless, the New York Times report is also quick to point out that the potential informant is “prominent on social media and is considered by some to be a publicity seeker” (Paddock). It is apparent that the media is cautious lest it gives an overly conclusive coverage that it cannot substantiate.

Similarly, the guardian seems to offer a neutral coverage of the same. In the article, NSA chief: Trump ‘has not ordered disruption of Russia election meddling’ Siddiqui moderates the issues in an objective way. The choice of words, the analysis, and the discourse seem to vary from the other articles. Unlike in in the previous articles, this one mostly uses a dialogue kind of exposition, where the facts are stated directly from the person who stated them. Quoting from the top United States, officials, the reporter develops the article in what can more or less appear to be an interrogative kind of discourse. Besides, the article avoids the use of reported speech, perhaps with the aim of preventing any possible distortion of the information. The assertions in the whole saga are of very significant magnitude – and giving any implied perspective would seem to be biased. The article is the quintessence of first-hand reporting. In fact, the new piece is structures in a very objective and elaborate manner that leaves the conclusion to the reader. The author is very cautious as not to leave traces of bias in the whole story. 

 

Therefore, it is imperative to note that various news outlets and analysts use different approaches to address an issue. The style of that the author uses is very significant in the discourse as it helps established the potential and target audience. An author may choose to use various rhetoric appeals that may evoke the audiences’ emotions and interests. For instance, Paddock’s use of the term powerful, and his persistent emphasis on the mentioned parties’ financial capability, shows influence. The powerful billionaires and oligarchs mentioned in the article gives the clue of a potential possibility of the powers to have an influence over the United States presidential elections. On the other hand, Coaston and Siddiqui uses a comparative approach wherein they compare the Trump’s administration and the Obama’s administration. That happens to be an interesting twist of the events which seems to not only shift the blames, but also sanitize the role of Trump in the alleged meddle. Coaston and Siddiqui uses a different narrative that tries to exonerate Trump albeit indirectly, whereas Paddock uses an appeal that subtly implies the possibilities of the Russian interference.

Besides, the three articles juxtaposes the allegations of the Russian meddling with the United States presidential elections using different approaches. The narrative construct of the three authors evokes different appeals. Coaston, for instance, illustrates that the Trumps administration was caught off guard by the hacking events. Perhaps, the use of the term is intentionally used to convey a subtle meaning. The diction is possibly meant not to show the unpreparedness of the administration but its non-involvement. The fact that the Trump’s administration was caught unawareness shows that they had nothing to blame in the alleged meddling. Consequently, that befits the narrative that it is Obama who was to blame for recklessness in the whole saga. It is strategically escapist. On the other hand, Saddiqui, who seems to be a proponent of the innocence of the Trump’s administration uses a different appeal but conveys the same message. Ideally, the appeal of the author will always reveal his or her stance.

In summation, different authors will convey the same message using different constructions. The narratives will at times end up conveying the same message, yet the authors will exude their biases. In fact, the style and the discourse will always determine the partiality of an author or the lack thereof. The issue of the Russian alleged meddling with the United States presidential elections has been a heated and controversial debate – in not only the US, but over the world. Author, analysts, and pundits have given varied perspectives about the issue. Essentially, the reporting of the same has been revolving around the issue of self-preservation and fact-finding. Either way, the authors have maintained their biases in their works – but the significance of the topic remains relevant.

Works Cited

Coaston, Jane. “Trump’S New “Blame Obama” Approach To Russian Election Meddling, Explained.” Vox. N.p., 2018. Web. 6 Mar. 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/22/17025628/trumps-obama-russia-scandal-white-house

Paddock, Richard. “Escort Says Audio Recordings Show Russian Meddling In U.S. Election.” Nytimes.com. N.p., 2018. Web. 6 Mar. 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/world/asia/nastya-rybka-trump-putin.html

Siddiqui, Sabrina. “NSA Chief: Trump ‘Has Not Ordered Disruption Of Russia Election Meddling’.” the Guardian. N.p., 2018. Web. 6 Mar. 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/27/trump-russia-meddling-mike-rogers