 |
Drew's
CybercribPortfolio |
|||||
|
Portfolio |
||||||
|
Here's a small sample of some of my work. Email me and let me know what you think!
speech by Bill Moyers to the National Press Club. Scroll down to 1.
Hank Aaron's home-run record. Scroll down to 2.
Scroll down to 3.
tax system. Scroll down to 4.
1. Drew Mansfield WASHINGTON, D.C. - Bill Moyers warned
journalists Monday that a government that goes unchecked does a lot
of harm to citizens who remain ignorant of its practices because of
bad reporting. -END- 2. Drew Mansfield When I was ten years old, I received my most cherished possession. It was a 1955 baseball card of Hank Aaron, my father's boyhood hero. Prior to this occasion, I only knew that Hank Aaron was the all-time home-run leader, so my father proceeded to tell me the story of the struggles Hank went through during his quest to break Babe Ruth's home-run record. He told me how unprecedented the occurrence was for a black man to break a famous baseball record held by a white man. My father also told me about the death threats and verbal abuse Hank received leading up to his record-breaking home-run, and that's what has really stuck in my head. Ten years after receiving that baseball card I still thought about Hank Aaron's record and wondered if, at the time, it was overshadowed by the racism acted out towards him. I mean, what a travesty if would be to have racism be the first thing to come to mind when the name Hank Aaron is brought up. Now, since it's the media that forms our perceptions of events, newspaper coverage of Hank Aaron would undoubtedly show if this was true. Moreover, if the press in general focused on Hank's battles with racism more than the magnitude of the event, surely the black press would take that focus to another level. To see if this was the case, I investigated the Chicago Defender, a well renowned and nationally circulated black newspaper, over the course of roughly a year leading up to Hank Aaron's record-breaking home-run. To my surprise, I found that the Chicago Defender gathered plenty of stories unrelated to racism during that year, from May 1973 to May 1974. While not all of this press was positive, such as the continuing coverage of the epic power-struggle between Hank and Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, the Chicago Defender didn't push the racism topic any more than it was needed. More importantly, when the racism topic was covered, the Chicago Defender did an outstanding job of stressing to readers that the racist group was simply a hateful minority. Aside from the coverage of Hank's conflict with Commissioner Kuhn and his struggles with racism, the Chicago Defender exerted most of its energy into characterizing Hank Aaron as a model black man and, most importantly, a model human being. Of course, the topic of racism could not simply be ignored altogether, but to summarize; While the Chicago Defender covered Hank Aaron's battle with racism sufficiently, the stories regarding Commissioner Kuhn and Hank Aaron as a model citizen are what shaped readers perceptions of his quest to become the all-time home run leader. The problems between Hank Aaron and Commissioner Bowie Kuhn are thoroughly covered in the Chicago Defender dating back to June 1973. While Kuhn is never labeled a racist in any particular story, it's quite obvious that his love for the game of baseball is questioned as well as his understanding of the magnitude of Hank's achievement. The first story arose in June 1973 after Kuhn had warned pitchers not to give Hank an easy pitch to hit when the opportunity presented itself. Several pitchers had been quoted as saying that they wouldn't mind giving up Hank Aaron's record-breaking homerun. The Chicago Defender struck back, suggesting that Kuhn was a "backstabber" who was simply promoting conflict between himself and Hank Aaron ("Kuhn warns pitchers" 25). Of all the articles regarding Commissioner Kuhn, this one is certainly the most subjective and opinionated. I would go as far as to say that Norman O. Unger, the Sports Editor, went a bit overboard in his assessment of the situation. After all, Commissioner Kuhn was simply making sure the competition stayed healthy regardless of what records could be attained. The next article came after Hank blasted his 700th home run. According to this story, Hank didn't receive a congratulatory letter from Commissioner Kuhn after he became only the second man to hit 700 home runs. Telegrams were received from former teammates and even Jesse Jackson, yet somehow the Commissioner of Baseball overlooked the feat ("Kuhn only 'VIP'" page #). In this article, the Chicago Defender resists the temptation to bash Kuhn. It simply lets the article speak for itself, allowing the readers to form their own opinions of him. Quotes in the article do an excellent job of capturing Hank's displeasure with the Commissioner. "I mean this sincerely, regardless of how small he thinks it is, it wasn't small to me. I feel he should have acknowledged it somehow. Frankly, it bothers me," says Aaron ("Kuhn only 'VIP'" page #). There was no need for elaboration or any insight into those comments by the writer. That was all that needed to be said. In September 1973 the tension was relieved a bit between Commissioner Kuhn and Hank Aaron. Kuhn invited Aaron to kick-off the World Series by throwing out the first ball, yet the article points out the conflict the two had previously encountered. According to Aaron, he and Kuhn had talked over their differences and would be honored to throw out the first ball ("Kuhn invited Aaron" 28). The article leaves the relationship on a good note, but unfortunately the good terms wouldn't last. As the 1974 baseball season approached with Hank Aaron only needing one home run to tie Babe Ruth for the all-time lead, he decided to sit out the first three games because they were away games. Apparently this didn't sit well with Kuhn, as he opposed Hank's decision publicly, stating that "it wasn't in the best interest of baseball" for him to sit out ("Aaron plays 'pawn'" 28). The Chicago Defender takes a creative approach to this situation, describing the conflict as a chess game and labeling Aaron as the pawn and Kuhn as the king. Of course, Aaron is the insignificant player in the game and no match for the king, yet one can't overlook that a pawn, if given the opportunity, can reach the opposing side and become just as powerful as the king ("Aaron plays 'pawn'" 28). Norman O. Unger, the Sports Editor, is suggesting that Kuhn shouldn't overlook the power that Aaron could possess even though he sees little hope of the confrontation coming out in Hank's favor. In fact, in an article the very next day, the Chicago Defender reports that Kuhn had ordered Aaron to "play two of the three games in that series" ("Hank gets his" page #). Hank Aaron ended up playing in two of those first three games, hitting one home run to tie Babe Ruth for the all-time lead. One would expect important people such as the Commissioner of Baseball to attend the games in which the record could be attained, but of course Commissioner Kuhn sent his assistant, Monte Irvin. The fact that he presented Hank with a diamond-studded watch made no difference, as the crowd booed loudly when Commissioner Kuhn's name was mentioned ("Hank's trouble ends" page #). Apparently it was a consensus among baseball fans, black and white, that Commissioner Bowie Kuhn had drawn the last straw in his relationship with Hank Aaron. To miss one of the greatest sporting achievements of all-time was unacceptable, yet the Chicago Defender doesn't attempt to make it an issue of race. Instead, readers are allowed to form their own opinions of Commissioner Kuhn, and, judging by the boos sounded out at the mention of his name, I'd say those opinions were rather lopsided. This occasion marks the end of the conflict between Aaron and Commissioner Kuhn, yet it's safe to say that Commissioner Kuhn's actions left a bitter taste in baseball's mouths throughout the nation. With Hank Aaron closing in on arguably the most important baseball achievement of all-time, it was important that the black community got to know what type of person Hank was. Aaron had successfully stayed out of the limelight for the majority of his career, but as the record drew nearer that light finally found him. The Chicago Defender made it their objective to portray Hank as a quiet, humble, and yet sincere man who understood his place in the black community. It was important that the black community realized that Hank Aaron wasn't an outspoken man like Muhammad Ali, yet he was still a man to be praised for his actions and admired for his words. The first story that praised Hank Aaron as a black man was perhaps the most insightful of all the stories written by the Chicago Defender between May 1973 and May 1974. The story was printed on June 5, 1973 after Hank had spoken on "Hank Aaron Day" at Operation PUSH headquarters. The celebration, started by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, was a chance for the black community to "honor one of their own", and support Aaron in his quest to break the all-time home run record ("Hank Aaron has his" page #). The story in the Chicago Defender was not just a commentary on the events of the day, it was an insight into Hank Aaron's character and the status of black achievement. While 2000 people filled the seats of Operation Push headquarters, almost one million people listened over the radio as Hank Aaron described the occasion as the happiest day of his life ("Hank Aaron has his" page #). Coming from a "polite, easy-going unassuming man" ("Aaron eyes record" 25), these were not words to be taken lightly. According to the Sports Editor, Norman O. Unger, Hank had a different look on his face that day that made it seem like he couldn't wait to get on the microphone to let the crowd know just how important the day was to him ("Hank Aaron has his" page #). The Rev. Jesse Jackson went on to explain why blacks didn't get as much recognition as whites when it came to being honored. He claimed that it was up to black people to honor their own, and only then would they receive equal recognition ("Hank Aaron has his" page #). The occasion was put into perspective at the end of the article, when the writer claimd that, on that day, "brotherhood" was brought out between Hank Aaron and the black community ("Hank Aaron has his" page #). Apparently this occasion was instrumental in helping the black community identify with Hank Aaron as a person and not just a baseball player. As the 1973 baseball season wore on, the Chicago Defender made the public aware of just how difficult life was for Hank Aaron and how well he had handled it. The article claimed that, while Roger Maris and Babe Ruth hadn't, Hank Aaron had kept his composure in dealing with the extreme pressure placed on him. In fact, Hank had preferred to suffer emotionally, lying awake most of the night, rather than disappoint the people who were vying for his time ("Pressure building" 25). From the Chicago Defender on September 17, 1973, Donald Davidson, secretary of the Braves and friend of Hank Aaron added that "he's barraged by requests to do this and do that. He is very obliging. He's just a super man on the field and off ("need title 9/17/73)." The Chicago Defender always tried to point out how unselfish and kind Hank Aaron was to the unrelenting public. Several more articles were printed in the Chicago Defender that described Hank Aaron as a sincere man worthy of admiration beyond his athletic achievements. On September 10, 1973, an article was printed describing a campaign to raise money for a scholarship in Hank Aaron's honor. Started by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, the campaign strived to show people how proud Atlanta was of Hank's athletic achievements ("Eye Aaron scholarship" page #). The Chicago Defender also took note that Hank had taken it upon himself to raise money for charity. Aside from just participating in Operation PUSH and Opportunities Industrialization centers, "Hank conducted a bowling tournament which raised $25,000 for Sickle Cell Anemia" ("Aaron's Love Affair" page #). The Chicago Defender took every opportunity to portray Hank Aaron as a role model for the black community. If he didn't say much, they just had to use his actions as evidence and, since most of his actions were positive, the task wasn't difficult. As I stated above, Hank Aaron was a rather quiet man during his home-run quest, but he wasn't afraid to speak his mind a bit when he deemed it necessary. One such occurrence was the time when Hank spoke out in response to the verbal abuse he had received in Atlanta. In May of 1973, Hank finally let the nation know what the fans in the right field bleachers thought of him and his pursuit. According to Hank, some fans used racial slurs against him, claimed he was overpaid, and called him a son of a bitch ("Jim Crow' starts" 28). The Chicago Defender compared Hank's situation to that of Jackie Robinson's when he became the first black player to join the Major Leagues. Norman O. Unger, the Sports Editor, insisted that Jim Crow had picked Hank Aaron as his target in Atlanta ("Jim Crow' starts" 28). The Chicago Defender did acknowledge that it was mostly the fans in the right field bleachers who did most of the yelling, and they even threw in a quote from Aaron who emphasized that that sort of thing didn't happen at other ballparks ("Jim Crow starts" 28). Regardless, it was the first time in Hank Aaron's career that he had confessed to being the target of racism on any scale, and he wasn't willing to accept it. While Aaron claimed the problem started when he got too close to breaking Babe Ruth's home run record, the Chicago Defender suggested that the problem started the day Hank Aaron was born ("Jim Crow starts" 28). After the racism in Atlanta was brought into the public eye, the Chicago Defender made several reports linking the racists to people that couldn't accept that a black man could break a white hero's record. In response, the Chicago Defender refuted their claims that Aaron was inferior because he had more at-bats by insisting that the record was for home runs, not times at bat ("More Home Run" 36). While it didn't take any shots at Babe Ruth or his achievements, the Chicago Defender was simply supporting Hank Aaron in his quest to become the undisputed home run champion. One article even claimed that Hank Aaron was responsible for bringing the name Babe Ruth back to life. "If there were no Hank Aaron today," Doc Young claimed, "most kids would immediately think of candy when "Babe Ruth" is mentioned" ("Babe's Benefactor…" page #). Instead of embracing Hank Aaron alongside Babe Ruth, some people insisted on regarding Ruth as the ultimate symbol of white supremacy and a man who could not be equaled ("Babe's Benefactor…"page #). The Chicago Defender focused its attention on harmonizing the two sides of the debate rather than stooping to the level of covert racism. A large topic that was brought to the forefront after Aaron retired was the issue of the "hate-mail" Hank received during the months leading up to his record-breaking home run. For reasons unknown, this serious topic was kept on the backburner while stories about Aaron's relationship with Commissioner Kuhn dominated the front page. Moreover, the Chicago Defender never devoted an entire article covering the issue. Instead, a few sentences would be placed within an article relating to another aspect of Aaron's quest. For example, in an article pertaining to Hank's visit to Los Angeles in June 1973, it was noted that Hank talked about the "hate-mail" and deaths threats he had received ("Hank's in town" page #). The article then moved on to his family and his involvement with Operation PUSH, with no more mention of "hate-mail".
3. Fire 3-25-02 CHAPEL HILL - Firemen rescued a woman
and her two small children Monday morning after a fire engulfed her
apartment above Brinkman & Sons Sporting Goods, said Daniel Jones,
Chapel Hill fire chief.
4. Inequality in the United States Tax System
Although our country is supposedly based on the idea of equality, it is quite evident that this idea didn't pertain to our economy. Since its founding, America has been a capitalist society in which citizens are left to become as wealthy or as poor as possible. This free-market structure has created large income disparities within our society that are unmatched in the industrialized world. "The richest 20% of America owns over half of the wealth, while the poorest 20% owns only four percent of the wealth (Welch et al 506)." The capitalist marketplace not only creates inequalities in terms of wealth, it also threatens our political beliefs about equality. No limits are put on accumulation of wealth, yet greater wealth today means more access to decision making, so the idea of one person, one vote is tarnished (Welch et al. 528). While the poor just have their vote to contribute to politics, the rich can heavily influence the politicians representing them. These inequalities created by capitalism are what create social classes. Within America's class-based society, we are traditionally negligent of the lower class. At the time America's Constitution was written, no form of government was designated to help the poor and promote economic equality (Welch et al. 497). This is mostly because of the capitalist belief that the poor became poor because of their own failures, thus there was and still is little effort in helping low-income citizens (Welch et al. 528). Gradually, the belief came about that the government should help those citizens at the bottom of the ladder, but in no way has the government made any substantial steps to increase economic equality. This general disregard for the poor is evident in the current tax system of America. First, it is important to note that while the U.S. has the largest economy in the world, its citizens have the smallest tax burden of all the industrialized countries. The primary reason for this is because of the less than adequate social welfare program to help the poor (Welch et al. 535). Also, America's wealthiest citizens are taxed at a lower rate than any other nation. These two unique qualities of the American tax system are the reasons why the U.S. has the most unequal distribution of wealth of all the industrialized countries (Welch et al. 535). The rich become richer because their wealth is not taxed as heavily, while the poor are left without the assistance of programs that would be instituted by heavily taxing the rich. Within the tax system, the rich have an advantage over the poor because of the complexity of the entire system. Even President Franklin Roosevelt, who governed at a time when the tax system was much more simple, suggested that it "might as well be written in a foreign language" because of all the loopholes (Welch et al. 535). The wealthy, who are generally regarded as being more educated, are able to take advantage of the numerous loopholes which include deductions for children, charitable donations, investments, and interest on mortgage payments (Welch et al. 537). When it comes to the spending of these taxes, the poor are left out under many circumstances. The term "Social Welfare" is generally perceived as being programs that benefit the poor, but in practice these policies are not as beneficial as they seem. Social Welfare spending goes mostly to Social Security, tuition for college students, home mortgages, federal farm support, unemployment compensation, and the elderly. These programs, for the most part, go to the middle class, since the poor usually don't go to college, buy homes, or have jobs entitling them to Social Security or unemployment compensation (Welch et al. 497). The use of federal taxes to provide Social Security tends to be biggest problem of the poor, since it takes up the biggest chunk of federal spending, accounting for 22 percent (Welch et al. 498). Only the first $68,000 of a citizen's earnings is taxed by Social Security, leaving the wealthy virtually unaffected while low-income people are taxed on everything they earn. This system is quite unfair because these low-income workers receive very low Social Security payments (Welsh et al. 499) while the larger portion goes to those who don't need it. In fact, "Sixty Percent of Social Security payments go to those above the poverty line (Welch et al. 498). These facts are quite disturbing and exhibit a general feeling of disregard for poor, but amazingly the lower class has seen improvements from a time when the government played no part in helping the less fortunate. The promotion of economic equality has historically been done by the work of Democrats, who have been known as more liberal since the 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt instituted the New Deal (Welch et al. 91). Since then, Democrats have been known for instituting laws to legalize abortion, promote civil rights, and, relative to this topic, improve the lives of all citizens, including the poor (Welch et al. 91). Although Democrats today don't fight to remove capitalism, the base of income inequality, they see the economic prosperity created by the free-market as a way to at least reduce income disparities. John Bernstein, an economist at a liberal research organization states, "I don't see any good reason in an economy as strong as ours, at this point in the business cycle, that we don't seem to be nudging income inequality down (NYT, 9/27, A12)." Although income disparity between the rich and poor didn't change for the sixth year in a row, poverty rates dropped to their lowest point in over two decades under the Clinton administration (NYT, 9/27, A12). This shows that Democrats have succeeded in taking small steps to get people out of poverty. They try to do this because they believe that people are poor due to a lack of well-paying jobs, not because they are failures (Welch et al. 509). This belief is what causes Democrats to push for more aid to the poor, which is evident in Al Gore's tax cut proposal. Of course, due to the fact that the Democratic Party can't snap its fingers to accomplish its goals, there must be something in the way. The barrier standing in the way of Democrat's goals is the ideology of conservatives, who tend to be associated with the Republican Party. This ideology supports the traditional belief that the government shouldn't be responsible for a citizen's well being (Welch et al. 91). This explains why Republicans push to decrease the size of the government and, in effect, decrease spending on the poor. In general, the Republican ideology has been a catalyst for the increased economic inequality we see today. During Ronald Reagan's tenure in office, he passed tax and spending policies that reduced taxes on the rich which, subsequently, reduced government spending on the poor. These policies successfully redistributed wealth upward (Welch et al. 506), adding to the economic disparity between rich and poor. When looked at from an objective point of view, we see a competition between in-egalitarian (Republicans) and liberal (Democrats) ideologies that is noticeable when analyzing tax cuts proposed during the 2000 election. The liberal beliefs of Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, are evident when looking into his tax proposal. He proposes a 500 billion dollar tax cut that essentially focuses on special needs, such as education and health care (NYT, 10/4, A1). His plan is most beneficial to those in the low-income bracket, especially those with children. Gore sums up his proposed tax cut by quoting Senator John McCain. He states, "I don't think Bill Gates needs a tax cut, but I think you and your parents do (NYT, 11/1, A1)." For example, a single mother of two with an annual income of $29,000 would receive a $2,057 rebate, which is $1,767 more than she receives under the current tax code (NYT, 10/11, A19). Here, Gore realizes that this mother could use a tax break, in fact a tax rebate, to better the lives of her and children. He's calling on the government to take a stronger role on people who are in need. Gore can do this because on the other end of the social scale, a couple earning $450,000 annually would not receive a tax break at all under his proposal. They would continue to pay their annual tax of $112,807 (NYT, 10/3, A19) because a tax break for this couple would not substantially affect their lives. Instead, it would affect the poor mother if we take an in-depth look. For the couple earning $450,000, any substantial tax cut would be much larger in terms of actual dollars than that of the single mother. The consequence of this would either be that the single mother would receive less of a rebate, or the size of the overall tax cut would have to be much larger. A larger tax cut would reduce the amount of money available for federal aid to help the poor, so either scenario would be detrimental to the single mother. A scenario such as this would occur under the George W. Bush tax cut proposal, which will be discussed shortly. By keeping his tax cut proposal relatively small, Gore intends to spend more money on programs such as education, health insurance for all children, and "prescription drug coverage for those on Medicare (NYT, 10/3, A19)." These programs would all benefit the lower class in some way. Gore's proposal would focus government aid onto the people who really need it, and though it would not directly lessen income inequality, it would improve the lives of those at the bottom of the ladder. This may not accomplish a liberal goal from an economic standpoint, but it would give the poor a sense of equality in terms of quality of life. Speaking of the nations economic prosperity, Gore asks, " Will we use our prosperity to enrich not just the few, but all of our families (NYT, 10/4, A1)?" His tax proposal is a step towards a positive answer to that question. George W. Bush's tax cut proposal supports the in-egalitarian belief that citizens are responsible for their own well being. His proposal is a large 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut that is aimed at benefiting all income brackets (NYT, 10/2, A1). The widely criticized aspect of his tax cut is that is would benefit the wealthiest one percent of Americans the most. In fact, even Bush admits that it would (NYT, 10/4, A24). Percentage-wise, rich citizens don't receive larger tax cuts than any other class. But, when the dollar amounts are calculated, as a group they receive an overwhelming chunk of the savings. In fact, Al Gore stated that, under the Bush proposal, the wealthiest 1 percent would receive 667 billion dollars in savings (NYT, 10/2, A1). That is over half of Bush's entire tax cut proposal, and more than the entire tax cut proposed by Al Gore! Bush claims that his proposal would allow the people, not the government, to decide how to spend their money (NYT, 10/3, A19). To me, it looks like it allows the wealthiest 1 percent to decide how to spend their money. Looking at the specifics of the Bush proposal, the same couple earning $450,000 annually that received no tax break under Gore's plan would save $12,259 under Bush's plan, and the single mother of two earning $29,000 would save only $163, compared to $1,767 under the Gore plan (NYT, 10/3, A19). The savings of the rich couple looks inconsequential in comparison to their overall earnings, yet their savings allows for the single mother to receive only a very small rebate. Bush sees no desire to redistribute wealth to the poor, who could use that money to benefit economically and socially. He claims that the Gore proposal only targets some Americans (NYT, 9/19, A15), yet these are the same Americans he is basically leaving out. In speaking of the size of Bush's tax cut proposal relative to some spending proposals, Gore states, "For every new dollar that I propose to spend on health care, Governor Bush spends three dollars for a tax cut for the wealthiest one percent. Now, for every dollar that I propose to spend on education, he spends five dollars on a tax cut for the wealthiest one percent (NYT, 10/4, A1)." The money Bush proposes to use to benefit the wealthy is the money a liberal would use to institute programs to help the needy. His initial plan does not even include his plan to repeal the estate tax, which would also benefit the wealthy (NYT, 10/19, A20). Bush defends his tax proposal by claiming that he is only being fair. He states, "My job as president is to say O.K., if we're going to have tax relief, let's be fair, and everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief (NYT, 10/2, A1)." Instead of taking special needs into account, Bush prefers a uniform tax cut that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. After analyzing the candidate's tax cut proposals, their respective
ideologies become much more evident. Bush's proposal supports the capitalist/in-egalitarian
belief that the government shouldn't play a major role in bettering
the lives of the less fortunate. Meanwhile, Gore's proposal supports
the liberal belief that the prosperity of the few should be used to
provide prosperity for the many. The fact is, these two competing ideologies
must work together in a political system where compromise is necessary.
For this reason, change within our in-egalitarian economy is minimal
and not very common regardless of who the president is or what his beliefs
are. It seems we are left to live in a society where the people are
responsible for helping themselves reach economic prosperity.
This page was built with help and instruction from JOMC 50 at UNC.
This page was last updated on June 16, 2002. You can email me at dmansfie@email.unc.edu |
1. Here's a news story I did in newswriting class covering a
2. Here's a research paper I did about the black press coverage of 
3. Here's a news story I wrote in a newswriting class about a house
fire.
4. Here's a research paper I did about the inequality in the United
States