Dear Readers,
We are excited to present the first issue of 2024-2025’s The Polygon. While the paper usually combines September and October into a single issue, we thought creating a September paper to be released earlier in the fall would be an exciting challenge that would allow us to cover “back to school” related matters while they are still relevant to the Poly community. We are also thrilled to announce an upcoming special edition of The Polygon dedicated to the upcoming Presidential Election and civics. This issue will come out in mid-October, written, edited, and laid out by our faculty adviser Ms. Allen’s Civics Journalism Service Learning Team and Advanced Journalism class. Over the summer, members of this SLT wrote more than a dozen thoughtfully researched and written stories on everything from how social media informs public political options to Poly’s new Disinformation and Democracy class. Additionally, Ms. Allen’s Advanced Journalism Class will be adding coverage, editing and fact-checking stories, and laying out the paper.
This year is particularly significant for journalism, as we navigate the complex and often polarizing discussions surrounding the 2024 election. Our current political landscape highlights not only the divisive nature of modern politics, but also the increasing responsibility we, as journalists, bear in ensuring that our reporting remains truthful, fair, and free of bias. Our goal is not to influence your opinions but to present you with the facts, allowing you to form your own conclusions. Whether it’s a national debate or a local issue, we believe that journalism should inform, not persuade, and we take this responsibility very seriously.
On that note, we spoke after each watching the Presidential Debate on September 10 and both felt incredibly disheartened regarding the role misinformation played in the debate. It’s disappointing to see how, in a space meant for informed discourse, misinformation can derail meaningful dialogue. Fact-checking is not just a procedural step for us as journalists; it’s the cornerstone of speaking truth to power. As we reflect on the recent Presidential Debate, we wanted to share some highlights from BBC and CBS News’s fact-checking efforts. Their thorough examination helps provide the public with a clear understanding of the facts behind the claims made by both presidential candidates.
Eating pets, inflation, abortion – key debate claims fact-checked, BBC News.
Are millions of people coming into the US from prisons and asylums?
CLAIM: Trump: “We have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums”.
VERDICT: There is no evidence for these kind of numbers.
There have been about 10 million encounters with migrants crossing over the US border since January 2021.
There are no publicly available figures on how many of them have served time in prison or come from mental institutions but there is some data on how many have previous criminal convictions.
Of the 1.4 million apprehensions of people crossing the border illegally so far this financial year (to September 2024) – and where the Border Patrol was able to check against law enforcement databases – about 14,700 people had previous criminal convictions.
That’s equivalent to roughly 1% of all border apprehensions in this period and doesn’t amount to the “millions” Trump is claiming.
Was Trump-era unemployment the worst since the 1930s?
CLAIM: Harris: “Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression”.
VERDICT: This is false.
At the end of Trump’s term of office in January 2021, the unemployment rate was 6.4%.
But it has been higher since the Great Depression.
In October 2009, unemployment peaked at 10% in a period of deep economic recession.
It has fallen steadily since, apart from a sharp peak during the Covid pandemic, and in the most recent data for August 2024, unemployment stood at 4.2%.
Fact checking debate claims from Trump and Harris’ 2024 presidential faceoff, CBS News
Misleading: Trump claims he has “nothing to do with Project 2025”
Trump: “I have nothing to do — as you know and as she knows better than anyone — I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That’s out there, I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it purposefully. I’m not going to read it.”
Details: Trump has tried to put distance between himself and the controversial Project 2025, a multi-pronged initiative overseen by the conservative Heritage Foundation that includes a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch.
Democrats have seized on Project 2025 and sought to tie the transition project to Trump, warning that its policy proposals are what Americans can expect if they elect him in November.
Rhetoric aside, a key data point from the policy perspective is apparent. Former Trump administration officials have contributed to Project 2025, and CBS News identified at least 270 proposals in the published blueprint that match Trump’s past policies and campaign promises as he runs again for the White House.
By Hunter Woodall and Laura Doan
In a policital landscape where the line between opinion and fact can often blur, even on the presidential candidate’s level, we want to encourage our community members to closely inspect the political information they encounter especially on social media platforms that do not undergo fact-checking. It is specifically important to recognize and understand the context of a clip that may be on one of these platforms. For example, a minute long clip on TikTok is surely not enough to provide an unbiased and fact-based understanding of the political topic at hand. With this in mind, we want to share below a graphic created by AllSides that outlines the party bias of many popular news outlets. AllSides is a “public benefit organization” that provides “balanced news” from the left, right, and center, with the intention of strengthening our “democratic society” with media bias ratings and diverse perspectives, according to AllSides.com. We must, however, emphasize that this chart is a reflection on the party bias of these channels, NOT accuracy. Bias here could mean for one channel to give more space on the page to one candidate over the other. If interested, Lucia and I encourage our readers to read articles about the same issue from “each side” in attempts to form their own perspective.
We invite you to join us in navigating these important conversations with an emphasis on bringing back civil discourse-always with an open mind and a commitment to understanding all sides of the story. We are eager to hear your opinions, concerns, and ideas as we continue to navigate discussing these topics. These perspectives can be shared with us and members of the Poly community in a variety of ways – for example, one may write a letter to the editor (around 150 words) or simply share their perspective on biased journalism rather than specifically this year’s election – we want to hear it all! If you are interested in sharing your perspective with the paper, don’t hesitate to email Lucia, Sadie, or [email protected]
Here’s to a year of thoughtful dialogue, fact-based reporting, and meaningful conversations.
Sincerely,
Sadie Schoenberger and Lucia Zaremba
The Polygon Editor-in-Chiefs
