This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies to properly ensure against voter disenfranchisement. Given the scope of the global pandemic and the speed with which policymakers had to act, there was very little time to properly prepare. There was also great contention regarding the legitimacy of election methods proposed to alleviate in-person election concerns, such as mail-in voting. The political battle between those who believed COVID-19 to be a grave concern against those who did not consider COVID-19 to be a legitimate threat towards their livelihoods also affected policymaking decisions. Policymakers were forced into a corner, as they experienced criticism for not enough government action, as well as disapproval on the actual regulation that came to pass. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors led to the decisions which shaped the election policy which occurred as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic during the election year of 2020. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: prior election emergency policy; the development of reactive election policy in March, proactive policy established for the August and November elections; and a review of voter disenfranchisement which occurred due to COVID-19.

This thesis examines the current polarization of news media, specifically written journalism, either in newspapers or on news websites. Americans increasingly get their news from polarized sources, and that is leading to a large divide in information. This issue is also exacerbated by political idealogy. Furthermore, I explore how the traditional business model of advertising-based revenue is leading to more polarized news coverage. To combat this, I offer interventions for news organizations, including the importance of journalistic ethics and the possibility of more news organizations transferring to nonprofit status, which has gained traction in recent years. Access to accurate news and information is essential in a functioning democracy, and if polarization and issues in news continue, it will be harmful to America as a whole.

There is a serious lack of local news in Arizona, the American Southwest, and the United States at-large. Arizonans are craving quality, factual, no-holds-barred journalism that is easy-to-read, and upfront. Quality, local news that covers the ins and outs of politics, culture, and community has an opportunity to not only enhance civic life, promote community healing, and expand knowledge made available to the general public (thus serving the communities it calls home), but to also generate revenue. Further, independent and center-right leaning voters in the state of Arizona — be reminded that independents make up the second largest voting bloc among Arizonans — are often crowded out in a media environment that consists of far-left nonprofit-funded news sites like the Arizona Mirror, formerly reputable papers that have bled readership as they veer further left like the Arizona Republic, and far-right online blogs that reach a very limited audience. The Western Tribune is an Arizona-based journalistic publication. This institution is dedicated to providing high-quality, well-sourced news and commentary on statewide, regional, national, and international current affairs through the lens of good government and free enterprise — as well as Southwestern values. We are a free institution that believes in free institutions. We cover stories that go uncovered because of the corporate media’s blind spots (and they’ve got many — they’re a result of news deserts and out-of-touch coastal attitudes) with the stable support of a robust institution dedicated to Truth-seeking behind them. Our storytellers are not just good writers. We seek to recruit and form critical thinkers with skills that span trades, disciplines, and educational backgrounds. We are building an institution committed to excellence.

Visualizations can be an incredibly powerful tool for communicating data. Data visualizations can summarize large data sets into one view, allow for easy comparisons between variables, and show trends or relationships in data that cannot be seen by looking at the raw data. Empirical information and by extension data visualizations are often seen as objective and honest. Unfortunately, data visualizations are susceptible to errors that may make them misleading. When visualizations are made for public audiences that do not have the statistical training or subject matter expertise to identify misleading or misrepresented data, these errors can have very negative effects. There is a good deal of research on how best to create guidelines for creating or systems for evaluating data visualizations. Many of the existing guidelines have contradicting approaches to designing visuals or they stress that best practices depend on the context. The goal of this work is to define the guidelines for making visualizations in the context of a public audience and show how context-specific guidelines can be used to effectively evaluate and critique visualizations. The guidelines created here are a starting point to show that there is a need for best practices that are specific to public media. Data visualization for the public lies at the intersection of statistics, graphic design, journalism, cognitive science, and rhetoric. Because of this, future conversations to create guidelines should include representatives of all these fields.