Can abortion restrictions be justified?

Abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy has been legal in America since 1973 due to the 7-2 decision reached within the Supreme Court case, Roe v Wade. However, with the infamously anti-abortion Republican party holding the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, there has been renewed pressures and regulations placed on abortions at a national and state legislative level. Coupled with this has been a dramatic increase in the enactment of limitations on a woman’s right to an abortion. However, when one considers the decisions reached within Roe v Wade the legitimacy of the implementation of such limitations becomes questionable. Can abortion limitations be justified by pro-life supporters? And more importantly, can they be considered constitutional?

The primary debate between the pro-choice and pro-life supporters is whether the procedure of abortion should be considered a public or private matter. Pro-choice supporters argue that abortion is intrinsically a private matter due both to its relationship with bodily integrity and the individual’s right to freedom from governmental intervention in their private lives. The second argument is significant as it relates abortion with the right to privacy inferred within the fourteenth amendment and thus condemns any regulations and limitations as being unconstitutional.

Alternatively, pro-life supporters offer the arguably weak argument that abortion is a public matter due to the operation being conducted in the presence of a state certified medical practitioner in a regulated health facility. Therefore, they argue that increased access to abortion invariably requires more governmental regulation in order to maintain health and safety standards. Additionally, the maintenance of high health and safety standards will alleviate the risk attached to abortion, thus making it safer and lowering the chance of death.

djdjd

However, it is worth noting that the continued implementation of abortion restrictions on both a state and national legislative level will likely force women into using less reputable practitioners without governmental regulation, which inevitably increases the risk of injury and death. Therefore, the argument that abortion limitations are justifiable due to both the procedure being a public matter and requirement to uphold safety standards is incorrect as the implementation of restrictions increases the threats to the woman’s health.

Equally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade nationalised the issue of abortion, as well as drastically increased the judicial oversight given to legislation relating to privacy and abortion restrictions.  In this sense, the enactment of limitations not only becomes unjust, but also unconstitutional. Primarily, as the supremacy of the Supreme Court’s decisions means that congress cannot interpret the constitution in a way contradicting the decision in Roe v Wade. Therefore, the argument that national and state level legislation limiting abortion is justified due to them both having a right and a responsibility to regulate can be considered unconvincing.

Therefore it becomes clear that there is minimal justification for the enactment of abortion limitations. Mostly this is due to both abortion being a private matter meaning it should be free of governmental intervention, and also the fact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade legislatively outranks any decision reached on a national and state legislative level.

Advertisements

Are we misinterpreting lone wolf terrorism?

The well organised and intricate terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings have seemingly been replaced by much more random and frightening acts of lone wolf terrorism. Lone wolf terrorism sheds the perception of terrorism as being a group endeavour and instead highlights the potential for an individual to become inspired to commit acts of violence without the direction or knowledge of the organisation. In this sense, lone wolf terrorism is essentially all about the individual rather than the group, thus increasing the difficulty of preventing an attack. The key long lasting consequence of lone wolf terrorism is the sentiment that there are a multitude of terrorists hiding within society which results in a rise of xenophobia and religion-centred hate crimes. However, if lone wolf terrorism is the act of an individual then shouldn’t it be considered detached from both the terrorist organisation and the demographic they belong to? And if this is the case, should the investigation into these lone wolf terror attacks be centred around the individual’s mental health and whether terrorism was simply used to give the perpetrator a sense of identity and purpose?

Debates surrounding the impact that a lack of personal identity and purpose have on lone wolf attackers is split into two differing theories; psychoanalytic and non-psychoanalytic. This article will focus on the psychoanalytic theory which suggests that unconscious factors drive a person’s mental and social life and categorises lone wolf attackers as individuals which lack a personal and social identity as well as having low self-worth. The likelihood of an absence of personal identity is proliferated through the continual growing interconnectedness of states diminishing the sense of a national identity. Therefore, resulting in a vacuum surrounding personal identity which drastically increases the possibility of psychological disturbances within the individual.

In particular, a study conducted on 88 lone wolf attackers from 15 countries found the following characteristics to be present in some or all of the perpetrators; mental illness, vocational problems, high-stress levels, problems with intimate partner relationships, social awkwardness, violent communications, and high intelligence. I find that many of the characteristics noted within the study are associated with problems interacting within society, therefore contributing to the idea that these individuals lack an identity, a sense of purpose and a grounding. The absence of these feelings, coupled with psychological problems, leaves these individuals susceptible to becoming involved with terrorist organisations for the sole purpose of having a place of which to belong.

486560393

Equally, the impact of social media on the mindset of lone wolves is frequently overlooked. Outlets such as Facebook or Instagram encourage the younger generation to view their lives as an ongoing drama and conform to a certain look, culture and way of thinking. Now, should the individual not adhere to these principles, then their personal identity would be out of touch with the status quo and out of place in society.

Furthermore, the increasing use of ‘live’ features on social media as well as mass news outlets provides the perpetrator with a colossal audience for an attack which is guaranteed to provide them with worldwide attention, name recognition and global fame. These factors can be considered key motivations behind an attack when one considers the lone wolves psychological desires to have an identity, to be remembered and to matter. Therefore, violent outlets become a means for these individuals to be immortalised through social and mass media, as well as find a purpose and prove their ability to alter the normal workings of a society that they feel no personal or emotional attachment to.

In my opinion, when a lone wolf attack happens there is general sense that the reasons and motivations for the attack are limited to the terrorist organisation the individual associates themselves with. What is required is an understanding of the impact that psychological disturbances and an absence of personal identity can have on an individual. After all, despite their idiosyncratic nature, lone wolves are essentially narcissistic in nature who rather than operating for the will of the group, instead use violence as a means of punishing the society that they feel no connection to. The change I would recommend is viewing lone wolf terrorism as an incident where an individual suffering from a mental illness or a disassociation from reality and society is taken advantage of by the ideas of a terrorist organisation to find a sense of identity and purpose.

 

Far-right Virginia attacks: Why Trump did not single out the alt-right

In the wake of the racially-motivated violence in Virginia as well as Trump’s condemnation of the attacks from ‘many sides’, new questions and criticism have arisen about the President’s relationship with the so-called alt-right. Thought to have emerged in the wake of Pat Buchanan’s failed bid for Republican Presidential nomination in 1992, the alt-right is comprised of individuals who are frustrated by political correctness, feminism, immigration and the ‘suppression’ of the white identity. The final characteristic frequently linked with the alt-right relates the movement to groups seeking white supremacy such as the Ku Klux Klan, thus making Trump’s willingness to be associated with and unwillingness to criticise the alt-right questionable. Therefore, one must seriously wonder why Trump was not able to solely criticise the alt-right for the blatant racially motivated violence that occurred in Virginia.

Indeed, it seemed obviously out of place for President Trump to refrain from using his vicious rhetoric that we have seen so frequently through his attacks of Hilary Clinton, John McCain, mainstream journalism and fellow Republican politicians. Instead, his response to the violence in Virginia appeared vague and unwilling to give his true opinion out of fear of receiving widespread criticism or losing support. After all, Trump’s campaign as an insurgency outsider nomination was often tied and supported by various alt-right groups which most commonly were linked with white supremacy. Support from these groups as well as Trump’s tailor-made policies and rhetoric to target white Americans enabled the President to gain 63% of the white male vote and 52% of the white female vote in the 2016 Presidential election according to the Independent. In this sense, it would be unsurprising that Trump would be unwilling to singularly condemn white supremacists and risk losing their votes and support, thus framing the President as a man willing to put his career aspirations over the lives of the electorate.

830783084A second explanative factor to consider could be the President’s wish to not create further confusion and divides within his administrative staff. Although, Trump’s presidency has been marked by constant resignations or sackings of high level administrative staff, the dismissal of the disruptive Anthony Scaramucci from communications director after eleven days seemed to signify the end of the period of confusion. Therefore, when one considers the number of individuals tied to the alt-right within the Trump administration, most notably White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, it should be expected that Trump would resist outright criticising the movement. However, this argument again highlights the President’s intention to place unity within his administration over the recognition of the victims of the attacks in Virginia.

Reflecting upon these arguments, the violence in Virginia and the President’s response, one must truly question whether Trump is fulfilling the role of President. After all, as stated in the constitution the role of the President includes being the chief of state and chief citizen of all citizens of the United States. In this sense, the President is obligated to place the requirement to represent the electorate over his career aspirations and desires for re-election. Considering his comments in the aftermath of the alt-right violence in Virginia, one can conclude that Trump has failed to achieve this requirement.

Is there a stigma surrounding breast cancer in the British South Asian community?

Data collated by the American Cancer Society found breast cancer to be the second most common cancer for women, with roughly 1 in 8 developing an invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) at some point in their lifetime. Similar statistics are found within studies focusing on global cancer trends, yet there is still a sizeable stigma attached to receiving treatment for the disease in certain cultures. In fact, recently a multitude of news outlets have reported there to be cases where the victim has died from breast cancer due to a reluctance to seek diagnosis and medical help. In this sense, one must question how a stigma can exist that is seen as so socially damaging that it comes before the victims own health or on the other hand the desire to protect and ensure the survival of a family member or friend.

In Britain, the South Asian community is most frequently associated with carrying a breast cancer stigma. Primarily, the stigma attached to breast cancer comes from perceiving the disease as a taboo subject culminating in a lack of understanding about the causes, symptoms and treatments associated with an IDC. The minimal knowledge surrounding the disease enables the spread of incorrect and stigmatising cultural and religious beliefs which make women less likely to seek diagnosis and medial help. Most commonly, the damning religious belief found within the South Asian community in the UK is that the finding of a cancerous lump is due to that individual living a sinful life and thus God is punishing her.

Widespread support for this belief likely results in an increase self-misdiagnosis of breast cancer as a skin abnormality in order to avoid the idea that God is punishing you, as well as a rise in depression amongst those diagnosed with breast cancer due to feeling deserted by both their community and their religion. In this case it should be considered unsurprising that a report conducted by Bridgewater NHS in 2015 found South Asian women aged between 15-64 years had a significantly reduced survival rate for breast cancer.

A final influencing factor on the stigma attached to breast cancer to be considered is the impact of the cultural expectations of how the wife and family should be. Principally these expectations are related to the marriage prospects of both the children and the patient. In the case of the children, the lack of widespread knowledge about cancer means that it is perceived as a certain cause of death for any future generations who are directly linked to the original patient. In this sense, admittance and seeking medical help for breast cancer has detrimental ramifications for the marriage prospects of the children.

Furthermore, the importance placed upon purity extends to the wife as well as the children with there being multiple reports of an unwillingness to go for smear tests due to fear of being considered defiled by the community. These two consequences further highlight the extreme and long-lasting implications of breast cancer stigma within the South Asian community in the UK.

Seemingly the main cause of breast cancer stigma in South Asian community’ in the UK is the absence of factual knowledge about the disease enabling the spread of cultural and religious beliefs. Therefore, one must question whether increased funding for teaching and training about how to spot breast cancer and the dangers of it would have an immediate impact on the rates of South Asian women surviving the disease?

The cost of the war on drugs in the Philippines

Rodrigo Duterte was elected President of the Philippines through the votes of 16 million Filipinos who bought into and supported his law and order campaign message. The promise Duterte built his campaign around focused upon tackling Philippines growing drug problem through viewing the lives and human rights of users and dealers as disposable.

President Duterte outlined his approach during his inaugural address when he vowed to ‘slaughter these idiots for destroying my country’, and has since enabled the assassination of more than 6,000 people by law enforcement agencies, paramilitary groups and vigilantes as well as claiming to have killed people himself. The legitimising of using murder as a tool to tackle a social problem has thrown the Philippines into a state of lawlessness, and although Duterte’s approval ratings remain a steady 83%, there is a notable increase of pressures on the state’ political system, infrastructure, and human rights record because of the war on drugs.

Impact on state’s political system and reputation

President Duterte’s bloody war on drugs has negatively impacted the politics of the Philippines both domestically and internationally. In a domestic sense, there is clear evidence that the Duterte administration deliberately inflated the estimated numbers of drug users in the country in order to utilise the fear vote within the electorate. Furthermore, Duterte’s ‘blind eye’ to the killing of drug users and dealers has led to mass corruption and the planting of evidence within the police force with no consequence. The lack of action taken to curb the volume of murders committed in the name of the President’s war on drugs has resulted in a wave of criticism from political opponents and the international community which has been met by Duterte in a less than politically correct manner.

In fact, it is Duterte’s response to the aforementioned criticism that is perhaps the greatest threat to the Philippines political system, as instead of answering the calls for accountability, the President has initiated a campaign against political enemies centred around harassment, intimidation and imprisonment. A key example of this was the framing and subsequent arrest of former secretary of justice Senator Leila de Lima on politically motivated drug charges as well as Duterte’s threats to kill human rights activists and assassinate journalists.

 

599453002

In response to international criticism Duterte has adopted a different approach revolved around vulgar rhetoric and the denouncing of other world leaders and organisations. Most notably, despite the Philippines close relationship with the US as well as its reliance on American aid, former US President Barrack Obama was called a ‘son of a whore’ who should ‘go to hell’ after suggesting Duterte should deal with the drug problem ‘the right way’.  Equally, Duterte reportedly told the European Union to ‘Fuck Off’ when they requested an end to the extrajudicial killings of drug users and dealers. The undertaking of such an approach only further harms the Philippines reputation as well as highlight the unwillingness of the government to address the mass killings of civilians.

Impact on infrastructure

A number of drug users or dealers found by the state police were imprisoned rather than executed, however this has placed extra pressures on the state’s prison systems and has again highlighted the absence of human rights granted to those arrested. Data provided the Philippines government indicates that jails within the state currently hold 132,000 detainees who are awaiting trial or sentencing, despite the fact that facilities have a maximum capacity of just 20,399. The overpopulation within prisons has proliferated pre-existing issues regarding inadequate food and unsanitary conditions, as well as lead to an increase in violence between inmates as rival drug gangs are frequently situated in the same block.

584673020.jpg

 

 

 

President Duterte’s response to the lack of adequate infrastructure has been typically limited to the extent that a 10,000-bed treatment and rehabilitation centre opened in December 2016 was funded solely by the Chinese government. However, it should be noted that the treatment centre shortly fell into international disrepute by using physical and emotional abuse as the only means of treatment. As a consequence, there is a lack of interest from the international community to fund rehabilitation and prison facilities until the Philippines begins operating within the universal declaration of human rights.

Impact on human rights record

The rate of roughly 33 killed for every 1 person injured makes President Duterte’s campaign the most-deadly drug war in history. As previously mentioned, more than 6,000 have been killed by enforcement agencies, 2,000 of which were in ‘self-defence; during anti-drug operations, according to the police. A claim which becomes utterly questionable when one considers the widespread corruption within the police as well as the fact that many of those dead have been found in horrific circumstances such as being bound and gagged, faces being wrapped in masking tape, and being piled up under bridges or even on the street. Evidence such as this suggests that not only is murder legitimised but also the torture and humiliation of those captured.

 In response to this there have been continuous and growing calls for President Duterte and his administration to be investigated by the international criminal court on the basis that his war on drugs constitutes a crime against humanity. The foundations of this belief comes from the absence of trials given to suspects, the torturing of victims as well as the mass killing of civilians giving the impression that Duterte is cleansing his state. Characteristically Duterte’s response denounces these claims by labelling foreign lawyers as ‘idiots’ who use ‘bullshit’ threats to influence the domestic politics of the Philippines, thus implying that the killing and torturing of civilians will continue.

To conclude, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that President Duterte’s bloody war on drugs will end. Alternatively, it is likely that Duterte will use his high approval ratings as a justification for the expansion of the war as well as a means to purge and silence his political opponents. Therefore, one can argue that without international intervention the murdering of civilians and their imprisonment in subhuman overcrowded prisons will continue at least till the end of Duterte’s presidential term.

 

 

Behind the hire & fire approach of President Trump

There are few things one can count upon in the Trump administration. Of course, there are a couple of items which can be considered regular such as accusations of Russian involvement in the Presidential election, anti-press rhetoric and obviously a regularly update twitter feed. One such item used to be the entertaining and arguably hostile daily press conferences held by Sean Spicer, who joined the already lengthy list of white house resignations when he left his post as press secretary on July 21st, 2017. Despite holding a greater household name recognition than most press secretaries, Spicer frequently appeared out of his depth in his role by using improper language (referring to concentration camps as ‘holocaust centres’), engaging in the selective banning of certain news outlet’s (BBC, CNN, New York Times, La Times) from white house press briefings and of course the now infamous ‘facts’ about the size of Trump’s inauguration audience.

However, it is the basis of Spicer’s resignation which should be so concerning to the rest of the world. According to the New York Times, Spicer informed President Trump that he ‘vehemently disagreed’ with the appointment of Anthony Scaramucci as White House communication director. Arguably, Spicer’s protestations are entirely justified when one considers Scaramucci has no previous experience within the political media aside from the odd appearance on Fox News, served as a fundraiser for former President Barrack Obama, previously supported the Republican nomination of Jeb Bush and Scott Walker and holds a liberal position on social issues with him tweeting in the past that he has ‘always been for strong gun control laws’ and that ‘Republicans should support gay marriage’. Yet despite the mass of evidence suggesting Scaramucci is the antithesis of many of the Republican parties values, Trump proceeded with the appointment anyway. The assigning of Scaramucci to White House communications director against the advice of the more experienced and qualified Sean Spicer suggests that Trump’s approach to governorship is slightly dictatorial and that not supporting or agreeing with him may cost you your job. The undertaking of such an approach can be argued to be entirely against the vision of the founding fathers as it leads to the diminishment of democracy as the majority of the decision making as well as the political agenda is set by one man. To further support this argument, the article highlights three more executive resignations/dismissals caused by disagreements with President Trump.

Patrick Kennedy, Joyce Anne Barr, Michele Bond & Gentry O. Smith – resigned January 26th, 2017:

The Trump administration did not have to wait long to have its first causalities as Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary of State and Management), Joyce Anne Barr (Assistant Secretary of State for Administration), Michele Bond (Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs) and Gentry O. Smith (Director of the Office of Foreign Missions) all resigned under the advice of newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson just six days after the inauguration. Now, usually a mass resignation a couple of days after a changing of administration would likely be due to disagreements with the new direction of the executive department as well as loyalties to the previous president, however seven months on the roles served by Kennedy, Anne Barr, Bond and Smith have still not been filled. In fact, there is a multitude of executive positions currently available due to Trump’s unwillingness to select a nominee, with CNBC reporting that Trump has nominated just 63 out of the 559 jobs classified high priority by the Partnership for Public Service and only 39 of those have been approved by the Senate. Moreover, a number of differing media outlets consider trust and loyalty to be the main characteristics sought after by Trump and therefore the minimal executive appointments suggests the President feels that he cannot trust anyone and is thus isolated. This is a dangerous mindset to undertake as it frequently results in the hiring of individuals less qualified for the position and leads to the formation of a siege or us versus them mentality. In this sense, Trump will only hire those who swear complete loyalty to him and his policies leading to a lack of differing opinions on the direction of the political agenda and legislation.

Sally Yates – dismissed January 30th, 2017:

The dismissal of Sally Yates as Acting United States Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General is a prime example of the dangers posed to your career by disagreeing with the decisions and policies of President Trump. Intriguingly, like Kennedy, Anne Barr, Bond and Smith, Yates was appointed Deputy Attorney General by former President Obama and therefore it could be argued that Trump was always suspicious of where her true loyalties laid. Although, it should be noted that Yates objections to the so-called ‘Muslim’ travel ban had nothing to do with loyalty, but rather the legality of the legislation. After all, Yates’ position required her to ensure the Trump administration remained within the law and was thus simply fulfilling her duties by ordering the justice department to not defend President Trump’s executive order on travel and immigration’. Regardless of this, later that day Yates’ was dismissed from her role and was stated to have betrayed the justice department and risked the safety of US citizens by refusing to support the executive order. The decision was met with widespread condemnation from the media, the Democrats and even Trump’s own party, as congressman John Coyners (R.) likened the dismissal to that of a reality show such as the Apprentice. In this case, the fire and hire policy used by Trump was shown to know no limits as even the highest-ranking position in the Justice department was deemed expendable. Moreover, the Yates’ dismissal further highlights Trump’s true desire to have an executive made up of yes men who will instigate his policies and beliefs without question.

Craig Deare – dismissed February 17th, 2017:

The final resignation/dismissal focused upon arguably went under the radar amid the numerous scandals and leaks following the dismissal of Michael Flynn three days prior. However, the dismissal of Craig Deare from Senior Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs again shows the dangers of criticising Trump and his advisors, along with highlighting any problems within the administration. Deare lost his position following a speech given at the Woodrow Wilson centre in which he reportedly criticised the handling of Latin American affairs by the Trump administration and noted the overall dysfunction within Washington generated by a high turnover of staff in high priority positions. In response to this criticism, the Trump administration proved its dictatorial/siege mentality approach to governorship by issuing a warning to the remaining staff that ‘if you don’t support the President’s agenda then you shouldn’t have a job in the White House’. The use of such rhetoric would suggest that any individual who opposes or even suggests improvements to any of Trump’s policies would be at risk of losing their job, therefore resulting in an administration which is intrinsically in opposition to the desires of the founding fathers who made the constitution and designed the structure of American politics in such a way to avoid a dictatorship. Thankfully, opposition within the House of Representatives and the Senate (mainly from Trump’s own party) means that America is not currently living in a dictatorship, however should Trump’s approach to hiring those who are loyal rather than qualified continue one can suggest that by the end of Trump’s term in office American politics will be the executive in constant opposition to the judiciary and the legislators.

Is there no such thing as bad publicity?

In an age where the language of politicians is seemingly becoming more colloquial, eye-catching and deliberately provocative, one must seriously question is there such a thing as bad publicity? After all, the Trump campaign for both the Republican Presidential nomination and the Presidential campaign was arguably based around the deliberate use of controversial rhetoric and proposed policies for the purposes of gaining media attention and exposure at the expense of his political rivals. Obviously this approach proved to be successful in both elections which therefore begs the question if political controversy is the best means of attracting media coverage. Furthermore, one must also consider whether Trump’s approach is undertaken with social media in mind rather than traditional mainstream outlets. With services such as Facebook and Twitter offering the user the ability to share stories meaning articles that both support and condemn the politician in question can go viral and reach far more people that traditional mainstream media outlets can.

Focusing prominently on the question posed, multiple studies have conducted research on the supposed relationship between media bias, candidate popularity and the political attitudes of the reader. Unsurprisingly, one candidate regularly focused on is now US President Donald Trump, who despite regularly attracting harmful press won the Republican nomination and the US Presidential election. In this sense, the continuous negative media campaign against Trump from mainstream American and global media outlets may ironically have boosted his quest for candidacy. After all, through sound bites and ill-thought supposed policies, Trump was able to capture the attention of both the electorate and the media, thus giving him his far more coverage than his more qualified and experienced political opponents. Furthermore, multiple studies consider that negative press generates far more interest than positive press. Primarily, these conclusions are drawn due to the fact that the number one priority of media outlets is to publish stores that will drive traffic and attract readers. Frequently, the stories which generate the most interest and are often the most talked about are based around the controversial viewpoint of a politician. The method of using controversial rhetoric and policies to gain media exposure was regularly utilised by the Trump campaign, which along with his already established pre-existing fame lead to sole focus being placed on him and a sense of selective exposure from media which was particularly evident in the race for Republican nomination.

Moreover, if one assumes that exposure is the primary aim of any politician running for office then negative press may be the most efficient means of attaining it. After all, as previously noted political controversy often leads to a higher number of articles being produced on the subject as well as encourages debates on the true meaning and legitimacy of the claims made. The second consequence noted is particularly significant when one considers the popularity of social media platforms. In this sense, controversial comments which attract interest can frequently go viral and reach millions without the influence or input of professional journalists. This conclusion can be considered particularly significant when one considers that a study conducted by Ipos Mori found that 34% of 18 to 24-year olds admitted that their political ideals and allegiance could be altered by something they read online. Additionally, a separate study conducted on the same topic supported Ipos Mori’s results by noting that 41% of young people aged between 15 and 25 had at some point engaged in a political debate online. The data provided by the two studies seemingly supports the claim that there is a positive relationship between media coverage and electoral success.

Finally, one can consider negative publicity and the media’s relationship with it to be a cycle of exposure which may or may not benefit the candidate. This cycle has three distinct sections which motivate one another. These are: controversial comments or policies by the political candidate, negative publicity and increased coverage in mainstream media and reaction on social media platforms. Furthermore, the cycle begins through the controversy generated by the politician, such as Trump’s pledge to build a wall along America’s southern border, consequently a multitude of analytical articles appear through traditional mainstream media outlets as well as online. The rise in online articles will invariably increase the likelihood of the story going viral and being read by millions of people. Moreover, as a consequence of a higher number of people being interested in the story and the fact that journalists have to publish stories which will generate traffic, the candidate’s coverage in mainstream media is rapidly enlarged and increases likelihood of success in the polls due to the candidate holding house-hold name recognition. In this sense, there is really no such thing as bad publicity as the primary aim of any modern day politician is media exposure and recognition.

By Jonathan Evans