A Striking Populism Title

The headline story on HuffPost today is a picture of President Trump holding his arms with his eyes closed on his scornful-looking face. The uppercase title is Trump dismisses white nationalism as "small group", and the subtitle below is Donald Trump: ‘I Don’t Really’ See A Rise In White Nationalism (Andy Campbell, 2019).

The intention of the author is very clear in the content. He is trying to alarm the people who are still unaware, with the dialogue; to provoke confrontation against the white nationalism, with the belief to the public opinion. The reporter in the video is also trying to take advantage of the shooting incident in New Zealand today, guiding the president to admit the white nationalism is rising a threat. However, Trump is so experienced that avoids direct answers to the questions, leaves the questions unresponsive.

Looking back in American history, the rise of populism is often related to the political crisis that has not been resolved in society. In the meantime, populist politics happens in the conflict between the public and the elite, which is an appeal that can not be reached easily under the existing political structure. Whereas, this is exact American politics, has the parties fight against each other, to restrict each other on policies and behaviors, then make compromise and cooperation.

According to Media Bias/Fact Check, HuffPost is rated Left-Biased due to story selection that favors the left and factually High due to proper sourcing of information. In logical, it is understandable for its view and reports differ from the populist politics representative president Trump, the right.

However, in my opinion, a small number of crazy nationalists killed other people is definitely a horrible serious incident. In the general trend of political realignment, to promote the amendment to the current American gun control policy is more efficient, rather than to just blame the president for his populist politics.

In summary, Trump is believed as an out-and-out populist politician. The populist in the United States is believed rebelling against elite politics. The hate in between parties is growing, and covering the mid-term election in the United States as many people are concerned, a new civil war is looming.

To extradite Meng Wanzhou or not, a big deal

A piece of fresh news that came up today was about Huawei’s financial executive Meng Wanzhou can be extradited to the U.S., for charges related to alleged violations of U.S. sanctions law. The fraud allegations are about a company called Skycom, which has business in Iran, was a "hidden" subsidiary of Huawei.

I was truly shocked when I glanced at the news on The Washington Post. My first reaction was the language expression in the news was too positional and calm, just like there is nothing to do with the United States, that is not true. The truth is the arrest of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou has ignited a firestorm of interest around the world. The U.S. authorities try to file almost two dozen charges on bank fraud, obstruction of justice, and theft of technology to against Huawei, the world's second largest smartphone maker in China. U.S. government has been paying great attention to the case and trying to pressure Canada to extradite Ms. Meng. It is such a big deal for the United States.

After I reviewed the same case on the BBC, I found a big difference in reporting the action of Canada. The news on The Washington Post points out that Canada’s Justice Department believes there is “sufficient evidence” to formally proceed. So Canada decides to move the case forward, in order to pave the way for a legal battle that could pit Canada against China, and complicate the relationship between Canada, China, and the United States, with an extradition hearing for Meng Wanzhou. I totally don't believe that. As a comparison, the BBC's news looks more objective. It said that Canada will allow the case to move forward, but the court must make a final decision, and it is the United States that wants Meng Wanzhou to stand trial on charges. The fact is an extradition hearing is not a trial, nor does it render a verdict of guilt or innocence.

More interestingly, it reports that "Donald Trump has twice suggested he would intervene in the US Justice Department's case against Ms. Meng if it would serve national security interests or help achieve a trade deal with China" on the BBC News. While The Washington Post news is also targeting China that the Chinese government claims Meng’s arrest was political, and giving an example of "a Canadian convicted of drug smuggling was sentenced to death in a hasty, one-day trial " as part of retaliation, which is even not mentioned by the BBC news. I am just out of curiosity, what penalty will be sentenced for drug smuggling in the United States? Should the United States condemn judicial independence in other countries?

I can't tell how I expect for the case. But I know it is such a big deal that is about money, power, and international intrigue which will definitely have an impact in all the countries that related.

Sources:
Canada to proceed with extradition case against Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou
Emily Rauhala, The Washington Post, March 1, 2019
Meng Wanzhou: Huawei chief executive can be extradited, Canada says
BBC News, March 1, 2019