Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Media? Biased? Noooo.
Take ten minutes to browse the Politics page of each of the following news outlets, NPR, FOXNews, MSNBC, and CNN. Then answer the following questions. Write in complete sentences. You will want to look at the questions before you begin browsing, so you can take notes as you browse.
Take note of the format and presentation of the news stories. What is the top story of the day? Does it vary from site to site? What does this tell you about that particular sources political agenda? Is the format meant to catch your eye or draw you to a certain part of the site? Is it a dynamic or static approach? Is there a difference between the private and public news outlets? Why might this be?
Find two or three articles or videos that are reporting the same event, topic, etc. The goal is to find at least two articles written about the same event.
As you read, watch or listen, ask yourself these questions:
a. Is there any evidence of bias in the headlines for the story? Justify your answer.
b. Is there any evidence of bias in the sources used for the story? Justify your answer.
c. Is there any word choice you found particularly indicative of bias? Justify your answer.
d. What are the biggest similarities/differences between the articles you chose? Be specific, citing at least two of the articles directly.
Finally, after you have located and highlighted possibly biased articles, and answered the quesitons above, consider the following:
a. If we know there is media bias, and can effectively "filter" what we read, does it matter that it exists?
b. Does public opinion influence what the media reports on or does the media influence public opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Part 1: Four Media Websites Questions
NPR: The top story on NPR’s page is “Boehner Blames Democrats for Scuffle Over Homeland Security Funding”. This top story demonstrates that NPR’s political agenda involves National Security. This top story, although presented at the top of the page, is accompanied only by a small picture corresponding to a story that happens to be next to it. Therefore, NPR takes a more static approach in presenting its top stories.
Fox News: The top story on Fox News’ page is “State-led Push to Force Constitutional Convention Gains Steam, with High-Profile Republican Support.” This top story indicates a political agenda focused on restraining the national government. (In this case, by means of a constitutional convention.) The format catches the eye through a large, colorful picture of people photographing a speaker with the background of a giant U.S. flag. There is a more dynamic approach to presentation, since related videos are presented in the margins.
MSNBC: The top story on MSNBC’s page is “Boehner Doubles Down on Invite to Netanyahu”. This top story indicates a political agenda focused on international relations and the threat of terrorism. The format catches the eye through a picture of John Boehner walking from a podium after finishing his speech, and he appears to be crying. There is also a video presented as part of the article, indicating a dynamic approach.
CNN: The top story on CNN’s Page is “House, Senate GOP Spar Over DHS Funding”. This top story indicates a political agenda focused on Homeland Security and where it should be directed. The format catches the eye through a large picture of John McCain, but it takes a static approach through its lack of videos and movement.
The top stories on each of the sites vary, although NPR and CNN share the same issue in their top stories. Public News Sources tend to focus less on the dramatic aspects of stories; when public sources discuss controversial issues with drama, they tend to leave out the drama; for instance, NPR left out John Boehner’s angry rant in its article. (Unlike private sources.) This may be because private news sources do what they do for profit.
Part 2: Bias in several articles: NPR reports on Obama’s use of military force on ISIS in two articles: “Obama Says He Doesn’t Need Permission to Strike ISIS-So Why Is He Asking?” and “President Obama Asks Congress For Approval of Military Action Against ISIS”. There is some evidence of possible bias on the part of the author of the first article: surprisingly, it seems that it may be right-wing bias. (If you only take the headline into account.) (Since it calls him out on possible contradictions in his statements.) There is evidence of bias in the sources used; Mara Liasson, calls Obama the Commander in Chief, a respectful and proper title. There is some word choice indicative of bias; by calling Obama’s proposal a solumn obligation in Congress. (That is, there is a comment here that sort of rolls its eyes on how stubborn Congress can be.) The Second Article has some bias; it calls Obama by his title, instead of just Obama; there is more respect there. (In the headline.) Tim Kaine is quoted here, who has sympathies for Obama. The word choice, which calls the approval of Obama’s plan an obligation, shows that his plan is greatly favored. The biggest similarity between the two articles is the word choice, which emphasizes respect for President Obama. (The first article calls him President Obama; the second “the commander-in-chief.” The biggest difference, of course, is the titles; one seems to call out Obama’s plan at first glance. (“so why is he asking” vs. “asks congress for permission”.
-Alec Byres
On all four news outlets, the top stories are about ISIS beheadings of Coptic Christians. The story that I researched was “ISIS attacks base housing US marines.” I read articles from FoxNews, MSNCB and CNN. None of these titles to these stories were bias. Possibly because this is a fairly new story and they are just now getting information on what’s going on. All the titles were just straight to the point. All of these articles were just being informative on what recently happened. There did not seem to be any type of bias, could be because there is not much you can change with this story. On the FoxNews article said “there was no direct attack on the Al Asad air base.” But CNN said something slightly differently. I believe that media bias still exists because we can’t always know what’s true and not true. Also there are many other people who can’t filter out the media bias, for example; if there is a voting and people base off who they are voting from media bias, then it will skew the results. I think that we influence the media and the media influences are opinion. The media see’s that the public feels very strongly about something and takes that and writes a story on it and vice versa, the public forms strong opinions because of what the media reports.
The top story headlines on fox news and CNN is the Isis massacre beheading on Coptic Christians. On MSNBC news their top story is “Christie’s approval ratings continue downward slide”, and on NPR their top story states the world’s coldest cities. The story I researched was the beheadings on the Coptic Christians by Isis. As I read the articles, I did not see any evidence of bias. It was apparent that the reporters reported their findings based on the released video. Their headlines and sources were all the same in all articles in each website. The word choice were all the same in each article as they describe about the mass killings and how it affect Egypt and stated their course of action, indicating there was no evidence of bias. The biggest similarity between most the articles (MSNBC, NPR, and Fox news) were the video of the beheadings were surface on the Twitter feed of a website that supports the terrorist group. I believe that you cannot “filter” out bias because it will always be apparent in the news. There will be that one person who will state their own opinion about a current event. Implanting bias in debates about current events intrigues people to state their opinions about the current situation. I believe the media influence public opinion because if the media discuss about something that’s controversial, it could easily spark a debate to whether people agree or disagree with the current situation.
The latest topic is the beheading by ISIS of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. All four sites have it as the most major event of the day and it demonstrates that ISIS is considered news worthy as it touches the emotional side of the viewer. Every site displays a picture of the Egyptians in bright orange prisoner outfits and these images are designed to catch the viewer’s eye as they are the largest and more overwhelming thing on the website. Sites like Fox News will typically be more biased than the government funded NPR which can be seen in the context of the material, however, the topic of an ISIS beheading will create some bias in all reporters as it is a serious and heartfelt subject that touches most Americans. Fox News uses the word “hostages” in their heading while the other sites just describe the people as victims of Christians which contribute to their biased tone throughout the site. CNN was a bit cynical when the Coptic Orthodox leader described the murdered men as “martyrs”. CNN could have avoided this biased tone by omitting, “of what he described as,” which brings to question what actually happened. The largest difference between the articles is the order the information is presented in each passage because most quotes are shared between all the references.
If we continually are exposed to biased material, the information will seep into our minds no matter how hard we ignore it. We can attempt to locate any invalid facts in an article, but our imperfect natures will not allow us to do this seamlessly. The more people are exposed to media and what is displayed, the more people are affected, but what goes on the media outlets as relevant information comes from what people believe is good or bad.
Part 1: The top story from each site deals with politics, however it varies from different stories.
NPR's top story is "Boehner Blames Democrats for Scuffle Over Homeland Security Funding" This story shows that their political agenda involves National security. Although this story has Boehner unappealing face on it, it just doesn't seem to catch my eye. So I think this approach is meant to be static.
FoxNews's top story is "Obama administration proposes regulations for commercial drone use." This story demonstrates that that Fox's political agenda involves on regulating the state. The format seems to be dynamic since the image of the top story is larger and the description about the article has a a bigger font than the other stories. This caught my eye since it was so huge.
MSNBC's top story is "Rock Bottom Christie's approval ratings continue downward slide." This top story indicates that MSNBC political agenda is involved with the public opinion. This tops story seemed to be very dynamic since all the top stories have a large picture followed by a large font.
CNN's top story is "ISIS targets Christians" Cnn's top story indicates that their political agenda is involved in National Security and international relations. This website has a the similar dynamic approach like MSNBC and FoxNews, containing a large picture for the top story, as well as a bold font, but it seemed dull like NPR. So I think CNN is trying to go for a dynamic approach.
There is a difference between the private and public news outlet. Public news outlet advocates the public interest while private news outlets advocate to certain people. I think the reason for this difference is to show how one news story could be bias.
Part 2: The article I chose is about the ISIS video on beheading 21 Christians from CNN and MSNBC.
A) I don't see any kind of bias in the headlines since it relates to the story that the ISIS group has beheaded 21 kidnapped Egyptian, Christian men.
B) I don't think this video was bias, but I think the source is since it appeared on a twitter page that supported ISIS. With advance technology, this video could have been properly altered. Also, it states in the CNN article that the Egyptian government has yet to confirm the killing while the Libyan parliament has.
C) I didn't find any word choice that was bias since this article was more about what the video and what the Egyptian government plans on doing. Both articles and videos mentioned the exact same thing, telling me that it is not bias.
D) The biggest similarities in the articles is the information about the video. Both articles says that "The terrorist known as ISIS released a video on Sunday that seems to show the militant group beheading 21 Egyptian Christians kidnapped in Libya." Both were right about their information. But the biggest difference I found was in the CNN article, stating that " The sea you have hidden Sheikh Osama bin Laden's body in..." seems to be more specific than in the article from MSCBN. CNN's article is more specific with the details, as well as the information about Coptic Christians.
Part 3:
A) I think with the media being bias, it does matter in order to change what people think the way the news wants them to think.
B) I think its both. I believe that the public opinion can influence what the media will report (for example, protests) and the media at the same time can influence the public opinion by changing their minds.
The top story for all of the outlets have been about security. For NPR, it was about Homeland security; for MSNBC, there was an article about ISIS beheading Christians; for FOXNews, the headlines were about drone use; for CNN, the top story was also about ISIS. This stress on security shows how the political agenda is more focused on those issues for protection. CNN includes at the top of the page an intriguing image of soldiers fighting each other, which will attract readers to read that article more, which creates a dynamic approach with the picture of the war, causing more people to be actively thinking about the situation with ISIS. Yes because public news is open to everyone with a broad audience while private contains a narrower audience.
a. For FOXNews, the headlines “Boehner says House has spoken on DHS funding, Obama's plan for ISIS isn't 'smart'” are seen to be automatically biased because it criticizes against Obama (specifically his plan) by quoting that it was not “smart” instead of providing a more factual and neutral headline. In the CNN heading “War debate looms over Congress”, it gives extra weight on Congress’s decision but does not have a bias to either side by the title.
b. The sources in FOXNews used were also biased because it only included Republicans, which excluded some of the Democrats’ point of view, whereas CNN had both.
c. Although there weren't that many word bias, one that stood out to me was when Boehner described the hearings to be “exhaustive”, emphasizing the long drawn-out process of the ordeal and how Obama’s efforts may be futile. In the CNN article, the word “looms” portrays the issue as threatening and connote a more dramatic setting. Describing McCain as “hawkish” displays a negative bias toward the Republican.
d. One of the biggest similarities between the articles are that both FOXNews “Boehner says House has spoken on DHS funding, Obama's plan for ISIS isn't 'smart'” and CNN “War debate looms over Congress” depict the increase in intensity over the ISIS issue. A difference is that in FOXNews, it focuses more on Obama’s unlikely plan while CNN emphasizes on the importance of Congress’s decision.
a. It does matter that media bias exists because it is nearly impossible to filter everything we read, so it is important that people are aware of what they are reading and its sources because otherwise it can incline the reader into believing a certain way on the issue.
b. I think the media influences public opinion because media is so much more accessible nowadays; you see and hear it all the time on the news and even news is starting to reach social media, expanding its broadcasting abilities. With such a great range, it has a bigger capability to influence the people.
One of the top stories right now is about Oregon governor John Kitzhaber resigning due to investigations related to his fiancée's consulting work.
A)There is bias in NPRs title "Embattled Oregon Governor Says He Will Resign". They use the word "Embattled" to say that he is basically in a war with politics right now for what scandal he is in, basically saying that hes in a war now, which is negative.
B)There is also bias in NPRs story of the governor, the article uses a lot of direct quotes from the opposing party by quoting Mike Mclane. Everything he says is negative towards the Democratic senator, even though the allegations are because of his soon to be wife. They continue to take quotes from people opposing the governor and none from anyone standing by his side.
C) In FoxNews' article "Dems urge Oregon governor to resign, top official reveals ‘strange’ behavior" about the governor they keep quoting the same phrase "Should he resign" which leads me to think that they are trying to make you answer the question after each piece of evidence that they bring up. It makes it seem as if they are basically saying hes done this and that and hes involved and this and that, so why shouldnt he resign.
D) In both articles they are negatively portraying Oregons governor. NPR states "Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon says he will resign amidst an ongoing criminal investigation.". they use the word criminal to make it seem like he himself has done something unjust and this begins the article which adds on to all of his criminal ways, stated in "Embattled Oregon Governor Says He Will Resign". Also FoxNews says that his behavior has been "Strange" and uses direct quotes such as ""I finally said, `This has got to stop,"'". These are leading the audience to believe that what he is involved in is wrong, without them actually thinking for themselves. The word strange itself is not a positive word, stated throughout " Dems urge Oregon governor to resign, top official reveals ‘strange’ behavior". So both articles portray the Governor as being a little shady.
Part 3
A) It is important for people to understand what they are reading and to do their research, because the media can make an article lean one way or the other and if the reader doesn't understand where the point of view is coming from , it can persuade them one way or another. By understanding, we can Filter what they say.
B)I feel as if the media affects public opinion. most of the Public will just turn on the news to a certain station, not knowing which way the station is actually leaning and become easily influenced by what they hear or read, almost brainwashing them.
NPR's top story of the day: Homeland security
MSNBC: Isis beheading of Coptic Christians
FOX: Drone use
CNN:ISIS
These top stories do vary from site to site. This tells us that the political agenda involves security/protection.
I believe this to be a static approach since none of the stories seem to catch my eye.
There is a difference between private and public; public involves more people while private contain very few.
I don't believe that there was any bias in the articles because everything was straight to the point, and plain. The biggest similarity between the articles was the video about the beheading.
I don't think that media bias matters because not too many people pay attention to the media to make that much of an impact... I do believe that not only does the public opinion have an influence on media reports but also I believe that it could be interpreted the other way around since media is so big and popular.
(Part 1)
Each specific media source tends to focus their attention on different events occurring around world.
NPR tends to take a center-left approach to their argument. It's evident that they seem fairly balanced in their headlines and their approach to certain actions the president is taking and the contrast between the speaker of the house John Boehner. They are fairly critical in the headline of his assertion claiming it to be a "blame" instead. However, they also are critical of Obama's leadership and how he is tackling ISIS. Waiting for approval instead
FOX NEWS: by the headlines "Republicans Must Take The Stage" and "Libya Debacle casts shadow on Obama's War Plan." It's obvious that a right wing agenda is being imposed, this is simply because of the phrasing and how it appeals to the ear. Fox News has always been critical of Obama and they demonstrate that through the headlines.
MSNBC. The top story was "Boehner points fingers" which would be evident as they are more left that any other network, as Boehner is Republican, they would not support his policies. Especially his perspective towards President Obama.
CNN: This seems to be the most objective as they seem to be more matter of face with their headlines. "The prophecy driving ISIS." With further analysis this seems to question the motives of the organization and exactly what they are striving for. Their actions and fight against their neighboring countries are causing more issues for them. However, this does not necessarily spring left or right.
(Part 2)
It is fairly that there is some sort of bias in every single headline, however, some are far worse than others. I would argue that by far the most objective of all are NPR and CNN. They appear to be center left, but in the actually scope of media bias, I think that they are more center than anybody else. Telling the facts and yielding from interjecting their opinion as much. In contrast, Fox News and MSNBC do the opposite and include their right wing or left wing opinion of certain topics including ISIS and Obama's approach to the situation. The phrasing and the diction of the actual headlines actually define this. "Boehner Blames." Shows that Boehner has no responsibility for what he is doing and is simply playing the blame game. While Fox News criticizes Obama and his behavior towards the ISIS issue. "Casts Obama's Shadow." This shows that Obama's actions have a major consequence on the nation right now.
Post a Comment