All posts by sfrattasio27

News

Flexing our Future – GENYOUth

Leave a comment

By Samuel Frattasio ’27

News Editor

I was recently selected, along with 22 people from across the country, as a member of the GENYOUth National Youth Council. As part of my orientation, I attended the GENYOUth National Youth Council summit this past June in Washington, D.C. Our council gathered to begin the process of helping address issues relating to food security and the physical wellness of students in US schools. As a national youth council member, I had the opportunity to collaborate with peers, as well as national leaders and government officials, in an effort to help drive change and policies in health, wellness, and education. To better understand the impact of the organization behind this work, it’s essential to examine GENYOUth’s broader mission and reach. 

GENYOUth is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the health and wellness of young people, particularly within the school environment. Founded in 2010 by the National Dairy Council, the National Football League (NFL), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, GENYOUth works to ensure children have access to nutritious foods and opportunities to stay active. Since its founding, the organization has raised over $200 million to support initiatives nationwide, promoting healthier and more active lifestyles for students. Through its School Nutrition Grants, GENYOUth has reached 17,464 schools and impacted 18.2 million students. Its Cafeteria Equipment Grants have helped serve 1.89 billion meals annually, and its Physical Activity Grants have benefited 23,893 school communities, encouraging 21 million students to be active before, during, and after school. Overall, GENYOUth programs operate in 76,287 schools, covering 69% of all schools in the U.S. and present in 83% of Title I schools. The organization’s initiatives reach 40.9 million students, which includes 82% of those eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

While in Washington, I participated in leadership development sessions, mentorship workshops, and lectures. I also met with government officials, legislative aides, and senior executives from leading organizations such as Amazon, Tyson Foods, and the National Dairy Council. The information sessions, open dialogue and platform for sharing ideas was an invaluable learning experience on youth leadership, public policy, and social responsibility. Each council member is also tasked with designing a project to implement within their school community. With an equipment grant and a $1,500 stipend, I am working to introduce yoga and reintroduce flag football to Hanover High School, as well as other schools in the district. My goal is to focus on both mind and body, introducing more cardio and stretching, while also having fun along the way. If successful, yoga could be offered as a regular PE offering, and Flag Football is under consideration for MIAA-sanctioned status. Beyond my own school, I am collaborating with our nurse, Ms. Nee, to take these lessons into the wider community, visiting other schools in the district to share information about proper nutrition and the benefits of physical wellness. We also aim to connect with local nutritionists to further promote healthy lifestyles among students.

I’m very proud to be representing New England on the GENYOUth Council and bringing some ideas home to Hanover. It’s more than just promoting physical activity and proper nutrition; it’s about empowering young people to take charge of their own health and well-being. By sharing these initiatives, I hope to create opportunities for my peers to lead healthier, more active lives. At the heart of this work is the principle that young people deserve a voice in decisions that affect them. As GENYOUth’s National Youth Council motto reminds us, “If it’s about us, don’t do it without us.”

Members of the GENYOUth National Youth Council with GENYOUth CEO Ann Marie Krautheim (center) and members of the board. Washington D.C., June 2025

Opinion

The Decline of Mainstream “News”

1 Comment

By Samuel Frattasio, ’27

Opinions Editor

It’s safe to say that many were surprised by the results of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. Among those taken aback were left-wing broadcasters from networks such as CNN and MSNBC, who spent months leading up to the election accusing the now-President, along with his family and political allies of various transgressions. While opinions on these accusations may vary, two crucial questions arise: Is such rhetoric necessary? Should broadcasters not strive to maintain impartiality? The evidence suggests otherwise. This perceived lack of objectivity is most definitely contributing to the struggles many mainstream television networks face today. This includes declining ratings and multi-department layoffs. In the case of MSNBC, there is an uncertain future. Their prime audiences are turning to information online, often from the popular social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, newer outlets, and podcasts.

To understand this phenomenon, we have to address how we got here. The mainstream media, or “Legacy Media,” began in the 1900s, broadcasting from radios. Televisions were introduced in the 1940s. Families across America would gather every evening in the parlor to watch the nightly news. This was when the news wasn’t divisive, before the negative commentary and constant back and forths as seen today. Back then, the news was simple, with straight facts and barely any opinions. Fast forward to the present day, and it seems you can’t turn on the news and just watch the news. It’s ALWAYS negative. As the mainstream media’s prime audiences scatter, they need to find a solution fast or it may be too late.

Is this rhetoric really necessary?

It’s not difficult to research a topic like this. A quick look at a few news programs and the key points become clear. For instance, I recently watched Morning Joe and The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. Both cover much of the same material but with slightly different styles. Yet, they both lean heavily on the same rhetoric. Take Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski from Morning Joe, for example. They’ve spent countless episodes attacking anyone who supports Republican ideologies, only to meet with Trump after the election results were in. Many saw this as an attempt to pander to him or preserve their jobs, further alienating their own audience. As for Rachel Maddow, a seasoned broadcaster and arguably the most popular figure on MSNBC, her nightly show blends current events, pop culture, and political guests. However, she’s been criticized repeatedly for a hypocritical and subjective approach to reporting. Despite trying to cater to her left-leaning viewers, many of them are leaving. It’s clear that people are tired of the constant arguing, the rhetoric, and the misinformation, that’s often found on these networks—and they’re turning elsewhere.

It’s important to recognize that right-wing networks have been equally guilty of bias. Take Fox News, for example. The network has faced its own share of criticism for promoting divisive rhetoric, especially surrounding the 2020 election. However, lately, viewers have been flocking to conservative outlets, and it’s clear that these networks are benefiting from a model that prioritizes partisanship. Whether left-wing or right-wing, the focus on political division and entertainment at the expense of objectivity has become a standard across much of the mainstream media.

Why aren’t broadcasters impartial?

I genuinely believe that most journalists strive to present the facts without letting their personal biases influence their reporting. This is generally true for many centrist networks like CBS, ABC, and NBC, which have historically been trusted for their more neutral coverage. According to a 2020 Pew Research Center study, 67 percent of Americans say that “journalists should aim to be neutral and unbiased in their reporting.” Unfortunately, the same can’t always be said for networks like CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC, where partisanship often colors their coverage. In fact, a Pew Research Center report from 2019 found that 60 percent of Democrats trust CNN, while 60 percent of Republicans trust Fox News, highlighting the ideological divides in modern media. Even within centrist outlets, subjectivity can creep in. Take Kristen Welker, for example, the moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press. Welker has publicly stated that her goal is to present the facts and nothing but the facts, yet, at times, her reporting seems to be influenced by her personal opinions rather than pure, impartial facts. Similarly, Margaret Brennan of CBS’s Face the Nation, and other broadcasters at ABC, have occasionally been critiqued for leaning into more subjective tones, especially when covering political topics.

In my view, it’s impossible to completely escape bias, and some argue that it makes news more entertaining, but in today’s deeply polarized world, can we afford to let personal beliefs dominate the news cycle? In a society already torn apart by division and hostility, the need for impartial, fact-based journalism is more crucial than ever. While no one is perfect, news presenters have a responsibility to set aside their personal beliefs, or at least strive for balance, when reporting the news. It’s not too much to ask. In fact, the public demands it. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, trust in media has plummeted to record lows—only 36 percent of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media. This decline in trust can be attributed to growing concerns about bias and partisanship. What’s happening now is that audiences are turning to other forms of media—like podcasts, independent news outlets, and social media—where they feel they can get a more “unfiltered” or “honest” perspective. So, is it too much to ask journalists to put aside their personal opinions and simply present the facts? I don’t think so.

So where is everyone going?

The answer is podcasts, social media, and online news websites. On the popular platform TikTok, news influencer Dylan Page emerged as a leading source for election night coverage. His videos announcing election updates garnered over one million engagements and 6 million views, according to the Columbia Journalism Review. Currently, more than half of U.S. adults turn to social media for at least some of their news, as revealed in a Pew Research study from September. Furthermore, about half of TikTok users under 30 rely on the platform for news, while 79 percent of Instagram users aged 49 and under catch breaking news as it unfolds on the site, according to the Columbia Journalism Review.

Online news is especially convenient for younger generations of voters. In the lead-up to the election, President Trump made a guest appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, which attracted around 40 million views, surpassing the viewership of last year’s World Series. Similarly, former Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on the Call Her Daddy podcast, amassing over 7 million views. These appearances not only amplified their voices but also led many viewers to cement who they would vote for. It is widely believed that President Trump’s appearance on Rogan’s podcast helped push the President across the finish line with undecided voters.

For mainstream media to stay relevant, they must shift their focus from entertaining to prioritizing facts and accuracy. Since November, many major news outlets have had to make significant layoffs; they should take notes on the simplicity of online media.

Ultimately, I hope for a return to a time when watching the news wasn’t a source of anxiety, when discussions weren’t dominated by shouting matches, and when people could respectfully disagree and still get along.

“The most important thing is to be accurate, to be fair, and to be honest. That’s what you’re supposed to do in this business.”
– Tom Brokaw, former anchor of NBC Nightly News

Opinion

Bridging Divides: Solutions to Political Extremism

Leave a comment

By Samuel Frattasio, ’27

Opinions Editor

In a nation once defined by its shared ideals and a commitment to democratic discourse, the alarming rise of political violence serves as a stark reminder of how deepening divisions can threaten the very foundations of our society. As communities split along ideological lines, the consequences become increasingly evident: violent protests increase, rhetoric escalates into threats and civil discourse becomes chaotic. Most apparent are the two assassination attempts on our former president, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. No matter where you stand, we should all agree that this is unacceptable. We have come too far as a country to be ruined by individuals who are so blindly passionate and extreme toward their respective parties. We must confront a crucial question: can we bridge all that separates us, or are we destined to remain divided? 

I’m well-versed in news and politics, regularly engaging with various sources across the political spectrum. Whether browsing the Apple News app on my phone or reading articles from AP, Reuters, The New York Times and The Boston Globe, I make it a point to stay informed. I also watch broadcasts from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and FOX. Some are left and right of the political spectrum, while others may be classified as more center. I enjoy getting information on all sides; this helps eliminate some of the inherent biases of most major media networks. For example, Fox leans right and CNN leans left. Even though these networks and their anchors, analysts, and correspondents differ from each other significantly, they all share one common belief: political violence is not okay, and it’s not the way to solve our division. Jeremey Adam Smith and Zaid Jilani of the Greater Good Magazine said it best: “The attempted assassination of Donald Trump highlights a terrible truth: Political violence and support for political violence have been rising in the United States.”

To better understand this issue, we need to discuss a few key topics: historical context, current trends, impact of rhetoric, mental health, consequences for democracy and potential solutions.

 Historical Context: Our country was born amidst political tensions. The great patriots of the “Sons of Liberty,” who dumped thousands of dollars worth of tea into Boston Harbor, did so in response to an increasingly harsh and dominant England. The split into Loyalists vs. Patriots and the Revolutionary War was the result. After the American Revolution, our country saw the emergence of political parties, which fostered intense rivalries, and political violence occasionally erupted in the form of duels. African American resistance was also prevalent during this period, most notably in Nat Turner’s Rebellion. Also during this time, abolitionist movements faced violent oppression from pro-slavery Americans. Fast forward to the Civil War era. The Southern states’ secession was driven by the desire to preserve slavery, leading to violent conflict between Union and Confederate forces. Throughout this period, political violence was often seen as a means to achieve social and political objectives; the tone of this era set the stage for ongoing conflicts that continue to affect our democracy. 

Current Trends: One may argue that our country is more divided than ever, and this is most obvious when one turns on the news and hears stories of violence and destruction, constant arguing, and continuous falsehoods from both sides of the political spectrum. Something has to be done to fix the wounds of our nation. The current trends of our divisive legislative, executive, and judicial branches have proven tragic; most apparently, the recent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, which came as a surprise for many, raised some eyebrows and questions on who is truly safe from political “extremists.” To better understand the motives of those who wish to destroy, we should examine former successful or failed attempts on politicians’ lives to identify what could have gotten us to this moment. Most notably in the mid-19th century, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated over disagreements regarding slavery and the treatment of the South. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Presidents James A. Garfield and Willaim McKinley were killed over the growing discontent with the existing societal norms. Years later, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. highlighted the extreme opposition to the civil rights movement. Fast forward to present times, and we have seen several assassination attempts on politicians, including former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 and the attempted bombing of prominent Democrats in 2018. While these examples all were different in some ways, they were all results of individuals who disagreed so strongly with these politicians that they wanted to end their lives. This shows us the beliefs within American society and the complex interplay between ideology, power, and violence. 

 Impact of Rhetoric: As we have come to understand, words have great power, and the spread of hateful, negative, and false allegations has deep impacts on its listeners. We as a society have a duty to determine what words and ideas we want to resonate within ourselves, things that match our own beliefs. Sometimes extreme language evokes strong emotions like fear, anger, or pride, which can galvanize people to act or adopt more radical views. In my opinion, the most prominent effect of Democrat/Republican rhetoric is the Us vs. Them mentality, which often creates clear distinctions between individuals who are “in” groups and “out,”  fostering hostility toward those perceived as opponents. This is the case during political debates and interviews when candidates constantly try to belittle their opponents and spread lies. 

 Mental Health: Kevin Boyle, Professor of American History at Northwestern University who was featured on PBS just days after one attempt on the former president’s life, said, “So what that means is that you essentially have motives and means. I don’t know anything about the motivation of this young man, but I think we have to be willing to acknowledge that it is also tied, to a striking degree, to the mental health crisis that does afflict young men, particularly, and that leads some of those young men to extraordinarily violent behavior.” What Boyle is alluding to is that there has been an immense rise in violence in the last decade perpetrated by individuals who may have mental health struggles. According to an article in The Hill, the Trump shooter in Butler, Pa., had a form of depressive disorder. This issue raises many questions like, “How does one get to this point?” and “Is political rhetoric to blame?” In the case of the man who shot at the former president, one must ask “How can someone with a (known) mental condition have access to a weapon?” To answer the first, there are various reasons why an individual can become radicalized. Mental health struggles can exacerbate feelings of isolation, leading one to join extreme groups for a sense of belonging. In addition, mental health conditions can affect judgment and impulse control, potentially increasing the likelihood of violent behavior. And to answer the latter, it is hard to control what people do and what they have access to. “Are the parents to blame?” That is a question that gets asked after incidents of violence. In my opinion, I believe that individuals who are struggling with mental health disorders should not be anywhere near harmful objects; this was the complete opposite scenario for the man who hoped to assassinate Trump. 

 Consequences for Democracy: This alarming rise in political violence poses a significant threat to the very foundations of democracy. This phenomenon not only undermines public trust in democratic institutions but also deepens societal polarization, making it increasingly difficult for citizens to engage in constructive dialogue. The fear of violence deters many from participating in elections, protests, and civic activities, ultimately weakening the democratic process. The big issue with this is that it opens the door to others with beliefs of violence toward people with whom they disagree. We must commit to fostering dialogue, understanding, and respect for democratic processes to combat this rising tide of violence and protect the ideals that underpin our societies.

Potential Solutions: This pressing issue requires immediate attention and thoughtful solutions. One effective approach is to promote political unity across different groups. When leaders and citizens alike focus on common goals rather than differences, it could significantly reduce tensions and foster collaboration. Additionally, the language used in political discourse matters greatly. Leaders should strive to avoid harmful words and negative ideologies that can incite violence or deepen divisions. Instead, promoting a message of empathy and understanding can create a more positive political climate. Public awareness campaigns that encourage civil discourse and highlight the importance of listening to differing viewpoints can also play a critical role. Ultimately, addressing political violence involves a commitment to unity, respectful communication, and proactive engagement in communities.  

A Call to Action

It is time for us to take a stand against political violence. We live in a country not riddled with hate but with freedom, kindness, and, at our center, unity. Days after the assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump, politicians from all parties expressed their strong opinions on the matter, including how relieved they were that the president was not badly injured. Unity is possible. We’ve seen it done, not just after this incident but also during the aftermath of 9/11, where many Americans came together, or the pre-American Revolution, where a once divided 13 colonies joined together under a shared desire for independence. The stories in the news today can be frightening; they can be violent and negative. However, when I am overwhelmed by this, I try to remember moments when we have come together, and that is what gives me hope. Political violence is not and will never be ok. While all politicians and people may never agree on all the issues, we can agree to be civil, working for a common good and remembering that our democracy is worth preserving.