1. What do the articles mean by "message"?
2. What does this illustrate about the ability of political parties to manipulate public opinion?
3. Which is more revealing about the true motivations of each party, what they are saying or what they are not saying? Why do you think so?
4. Do you think there is any media bias present in these articles? Whatever your answer, please provide evidence and an explanation of your answer.
8 comments:
The message that both sides seem to show is, we are trying while the other side is not. NPR showed what each side said and revealed if it was true and also showed what both sides did not say. Each article when read separately shows bias against the party it is talking about. But when read together it shows that both articles are unbiased
The message shows that both parties are trying hard to cover their tracks and blame the other party for the sequester taking place during this governments watch.both parties manipulate the public by leaving out key details about what their party has had to do with passing the bill and coming to a solution on passing another bill so that the sequester does not take place. What they are not saying is more important than what they actually saying because those details are much more telling in how the politicians "would rather pass the blame than bite the bullet". I don't think there is much bias in this article, because even though the reporter identified herself as a republican she showed both sides of the arguement pretty well.
The message that each political party is trying to get out is that they want to be viewed as proactive and show that they really want to fix the economic problems in our government. But as the leaders of our country, we can't be blaming people with other values and play the blame game. Someone has to step up and take charge of the situation and finally get something done. Also, when reading the two articles together, they seem to show no bias, but when read separately, they present some bias.
NPR is labeling the "message" as what the President and Boehner are saying to try and place blame on the other party, while it is followed by "what they are not saying" which is the truth behind their statements that make them seem hypocritical.
It shows that what they are saying is what the people want to hear so they can get riled up and angry at the other party, and most people don't take the time to hear what the other side has to say so its easy to ignore the ugly truth about what their party leader isn't saying.
I think what they are not saying is more revealing because the republicans are trying to cover up their past decisions and support of the sequester.
It seems to me that there is a slight liberal bias in these articles. It is apparent that republicans are being attacked more so than democrats because the article has much more to say about what they [republicans] are not saying. Also, NPR uses a much more emotional and hard hitting quote from Obama and uses a Gallup poll which is historically more liberal.
By message, the articles mean the general opinion of the sequester held by each of the parties, and their respective leaders. This is the message they are making available to the public, and it is the message that the parties would like for the public to base their opinions on. This article shows that it is fairly easy for political parties to manipulate the way the public can interpret their messages, namely by leaving out information that doesn't enhance their goals. I believe what they are not telling is more important, as that is the truest indicator of their motives. I didn't see any bias in these articles as they both represented the positive and negative aspects of the messages of both the republicans and the democrats.
What the articles mean by "message" is the main talking points or argument from each Leader's speech. What this shows is the ability of politicians to highlight certain key aspects of their arguments without acknowledging what they as a party have not done or done against something like the sequester. It allows each party to escape blame for their own faults and unwillingness to compromise and place the blame on the other party. You can see this with John Boehner's statement wherein he refers to it as "The President's Sequester" even though Republicans wholly supported it when it passes in 2011. This leads to the fact that what the politicians are not saying is more illustrative of the party. I think this because with the politicians use what they say to assign blame to the other party rather than talk about their own ideas. What they do not say shows what they are doing, and in some cases not doing, and how unwilling they are to achieve compromise on an as important an issue as the sequester. I think the media bias is not for any one party in these two articles but rather the writer aims to show the good side, but mostly the faults and shortcomings of both parties when it comes to the sequester. For example, the unwillingness of some democrats to change tax policy and the unwillingness to raise taxes by the Republican-controlled House telling the Democrat-controlled Senate to work out the sequester.
The message that each sends is the fact that they're right and the other party is wrong. Political parties demonize the other party to obtain followers.
Each party claims to be single handedly trying to fix the sequester problem while the other is not. The message in the articles are just one side blaming the other for the lack of forward movement. However, neither side is telling us what THEY DID, only what the OTHER side DIDNT, which only goes to show that neither side is really doing anything at all to try to fix this problem.
Post a Comment