HuffPo link here.
Liberal bias in journalism tends to be more subtle than conservative bias (just look at Fox News for a comparison), but it is equally as important to identify and dismiss as dishonesty in the mass media. This is an extremely well written article on Mitch McConnell's proposed revision to a bill that is being push through Congress that would further relax campaign finance laws, allowing even more money into the election process.
Because this hasn't made headlines around the country, the Huffington Post has decided that McConnell is trying to "sneak" his revision through, as opposed to just doing his job as a Senator. While the author does not explicitly state this, the grabbing headline posted on the website reads "McConnell Quietly Trying To Roll Back Campaign Finance Laws". As I've discussed before, headlines of this nature frame the story in the readers' minds in a biased fashion before they've even read the story, if they decide to at all. While campaign finance reform IS unpopular, and it would be in McConnell's best interests to not make this revision a big thing in the media, saying that he is quietly going about it leads the reader to think that he is trying to be deceptive, when in reality it's just smart politics.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Monday, December 1, 2014
Obama’s bumbling bundler ambassador nominees face Senate votes
Fox News article here.
Besides the nonsensical article title, this is just plain horrible journalism.
Right off the bat we have this opening statement "Two of President Barack Obama’s top fundraisers will face confirmation votes in the U.S. Senate after being nominated for ambassadorships that they are far from qualified for."
You might think that Fox will go on to list what would be considered appropriate qualifications for an ambassadorship, but you would be wrong. Beyond mentioning that the two nominees helped raise money for the Obama campaign, nothing else is presented as to why they are not qualified. The author then goes on to mention that he has nominated other political allies for various positions, as if this classification automatically disqualifies a nominee from a post. The article finished with this gem: "Though many of Obama’s nominees have lacked the qualifications to properly serve as ambassadors, Mamet and Bell seem to be two of his worst choices."
Claims should be backed with evidence. Maybe comparing the two nominees to other ambassadors would put the article in context, but Fox can't be bothered with that. Journalists should hold themselves to higher standards.
Besides the nonsensical article title, this is just plain horrible journalism.
Right off the bat we have this opening statement "Two of President Barack Obama’s top fundraisers will face confirmation votes in the U.S. Senate after being nominated for ambassadorships that they are far from qualified for."
You might think that Fox will go on to list what would be considered appropriate qualifications for an ambassadorship, but you would be wrong. Beyond mentioning that the two nominees helped raise money for the Obama campaign, nothing else is presented as to why they are not qualified. The author then goes on to mention that he has nominated other political allies for various positions, as if this classification automatically disqualifies a nominee from a post. The article finished with this gem: "Though many of Obama’s nominees have lacked the qualifications to properly serve as ambassadors, Mamet and Bell seem to be two of his worst choices."
Claims should be backed with evidence. Maybe comparing the two nominees to other ambassadors would put the article in context, but Fox can't be bothered with that. Journalists should hold themselves to higher standards.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Michigan Tells Gay Couples Their Marriages Basically 'Never Existed'
HuffPo article here.
Here's an example of over-hyping a story and stretching it into an emotional issue to generate traffic. It starts with the headline, putting the idea in the reader's mind that the entire state of Michigan is telling gay couples that their marriage never existed, when in reality it was only the state's attorney general.
This points to another problem with the story, which is the confusion going on between the attorney general's office and the state government over the legality of the 300 gay marriages performed in the state before the ban was upheld. Truthfully, the gay marriages are perfectly legal, but the couples are not currently eligible for state benefits that usually come with a valid marriage license. The entire story is misleading and is meant to seem worse for gay marriage supporters than reality shows.
Here's an example of over-hyping a story and stretching it into an emotional issue to generate traffic. It starts with the headline, putting the idea in the reader's mind that the entire state of Michigan is telling gay couples that their marriage never existed, when in reality it was only the state's attorney general.
This points to another problem with the story, which is the confusion going on between the attorney general's office and the state government over the legality of the 300 gay marriages performed in the state before the ban was upheld. Truthfully, the gay marriages are perfectly legal, but the couples are not currently eligible for state benefits that usually come with a valid marriage license. The entire story is misleading and is meant to seem worse for gay marriage supporters than reality shows.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Obama calls for more regulation of Internet providers, industry fires back
Fox News article here.
Here's another example of bias from our friends over at Fox News. They take a more subtle approach in this article than their usual outright conservative bias by exclusively quoting people with one viewpoint on a particular issue, this one being net neutrality. Besides the biased headline, we can see that Fox is trying to paint a picture of "Obama versus the industry" by the quoted content of their article. Besides quoting the President himself, Fox twice quoted an industry lobbyist who's sole job is to represent the Internet providers who are against any kind of regulation to their business, as are all businesses. Fox also goes on to quote Ted Cruz, a Republican who has nothing to do with the issue, but happened to take this opportunity to attack the President anyways. No other sources are represented in the article from the other side of the issue, beyond a quick mention of "Internet activists".
Here's another example of bias from our friends over at Fox News. They take a more subtle approach in this article than their usual outright conservative bias by exclusively quoting people with one viewpoint on a particular issue, this one being net neutrality. Besides the biased headline, we can see that Fox is trying to paint a picture of "Obama versus the industry" by the quoted content of their article. Besides quoting the President himself, Fox twice quoted an industry lobbyist who's sole job is to represent the Internet providers who are against any kind of regulation to their business, as are all businesses. Fox also goes on to quote Ted Cruz, a Republican who has nothing to do with the issue, but happened to take this opportunity to attack the President anyways. No other sources are represented in the article from the other side of the issue, beyond a quick mention of "Internet activists".
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Redskins clear to sue Native Americans – for now
MSNBC article here
This article is fairly basic and straight forward, reporting on a judge's ruling that the "Redskins" NFL team can continue on with their lawsuit against five individuals who want to change the team name. The facts are reported, and supporting quotes are given.
However, the problem I see with the article is the author's use of words to influence the reader in to thinking a certain way about the situation. From the article, biased language is in bold:
"Yes, you read that right: For now, the Redskins – whose name everyone from President Obama to Sen. John McCain call offensive – can move forward with a suit against a group of Native Americans who take umbrage with the term."
"The Redskins argue against the patent board’s decision with interesting logic, saying the team name wasn’t offensive when the trademarks were registered, between 1967 and 1990. For now, the team’s trademark is in place."
"The debate over the Redskins name seemed to reach a fever pitch last month when “The Daily Show” aired a controversial segment pitting ardent Redskins fans who seemingly saw no issue with the franchise name against Native Americans that did."
The author is clearly biased on this issue, which by itself isn't a bad thing. We are all entitled to our opinions. But interjecting those opinions as a journalist in to your work is crossing the line from honest to dishonest reporting. It puts the author's credibility at stake, as well as the publishing outlet. Journalism should report on the facts and provide context for the readers, not to influence them in one way or another in to taking a certain side on an issue, in this case changing the Redskins name.
This article is fairly basic and straight forward, reporting on a judge's ruling that the "Redskins" NFL team can continue on with their lawsuit against five individuals who want to change the team name. The facts are reported, and supporting quotes are given.
However, the problem I see with the article is the author's use of words to influence the reader in to thinking a certain way about the situation. From the article, biased language is in bold:
"Yes, you read that right: For now, the Redskins – whose name everyone from President Obama to Sen. John McCain call offensive – can move forward with a suit against a group of Native Americans who take umbrage with the term."
"The Redskins argue against the patent board’s decision with interesting logic, saying the team name wasn’t offensive when the trademarks were registered, between 1967 and 1990. For now, the team’s trademark is in place."
"The debate over the Redskins name seemed to reach a fever pitch last month when “The Daily Show” aired a controversial segment pitting ardent Redskins fans who seemingly saw no issue with the franchise name against Native Americans that did."
The author is clearly biased on this issue, which by itself isn't a bad thing. We are all entitled to our opinions. But interjecting those opinions as a journalist in to your work is crossing the line from honest to dishonest reporting. It puts the author's credibility at stake, as well as the publishing outlet. Journalism should report on the facts and provide context for the readers, not to influence them in one way or another in to taking a certain side on an issue, in this case changing the Redskins name.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Ann Romney blasts Democrat for sexist slur
CNN article here.
This is an example of an article that has almost no substance, and merely acts as an echoing chamber for the political figure that the article features. The article starts with quoting Ann Romney's reaction to Nikki Haley's opponent's alleged use of a "sexist slur": "When I first heard about it, it hit me right in my gut," Romney said in a Monday phone interview with CNN. "My nerve endings went haywire. It's so upsetting when you know someone can say something like that about a woman, and not have any kind of reaction. It's so unacceptable. Nikki is a great girl and has been a great governor." This is the first thing the reader sees, with no context presented. First impression is everything, so CNN's decision to present this first already sets the tone for the rest of the article.
The horrible statement in question? ""We are going to escort whore out the door." The slip-of-the-tongue was clearly accidental, and Sheheen immediately corrected himself, saying, "We're going to escort her out the door." But when some in the audience picked up on the verbal faux pas and started applauding, Sheheen grinned and laughed along with people in the crowd. Video of the event went viral." Clearly there is no problem here, as public speakers misspeak all the time, and he even corrected himself. But Ann Romney took the opportunity to turn it into an attack on all women, with absolutely no efforts of actual journalism on CNN's part within the article to actually critique any of her statements. Even tabloid journals offer SOME commentary on what they are reporting, either confirming or refuting statements made by the subject of their article, but that's too much to ask of CNN, apparently. Media outlets need to stop acting as stages for politicians to spew their talking points, and should instead critique them for accuracy and provide context for the readers.
This is an example of an article that has almost no substance, and merely acts as an echoing chamber for the political figure that the article features. The article starts with quoting Ann Romney's reaction to Nikki Haley's opponent's alleged use of a "sexist slur": "When I first heard about it, it hit me right in my gut," Romney said in a Monday phone interview with CNN. "My nerve endings went haywire. It's so upsetting when you know someone can say something like that about a woman, and not have any kind of reaction. It's so unacceptable. Nikki is a great girl and has been a great governor." This is the first thing the reader sees, with no context presented. First impression is everything, so CNN's decision to present this first already sets the tone for the rest of the article.
The horrible statement in question? ""We are going to escort whore out the door." The slip-of-the-tongue was clearly accidental, and Sheheen immediately corrected himself, saying, "We're going to escort her out the door." But when some in the audience picked up on the verbal faux pas and started applauding, Sheheen grinned and laughed along with people in the crowd. Video of the event went viral." Clearly there is no problem here, as public speakers misspeak all the time, and he even corrected himself. But Ann Romney took the opportunity to turn it into an attack on all women, with absolutely no efforts of actual journalism on CNN's part within the article to actually critique any of her statements. Even tabloid journals offer SOME commentary on what they are reporting, either confirming or refuting statements made by the subject of their article, but that's too much to ask of CNN, apparently. Media outlets need to stop acting as stages for politicians to spew their talking points, and should instead critique them for accuracy and provide context for the readers.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Ebola: A Parade of Ignorance
This week, I don't have a specific article to link to concerning my subject, but there is an ample number of examples on every news site today concerning the Ebola outbreak in the US.
We are seeing another example of an all too common occurrence in the media today: an artificial crisis blown out of proportion, with the media and politicians feeding off of each others' fear and ignorance. Multiple governors have called for travel bans for flights incoming from West African countries, despite evidence that such a thing only making it worse. Conservatives are using the Ebola scare to fuel their arguments for increased border security, saying that Ebola infected illegal immigrants could cross the border.
Both the media and the politicians using the outbreak are aiming for one thing: an emotional response from the public. The media is looking to capitalize on people's fear of becoming infected, and so they continue non stop coverage of the inconsequential developments to drive viewership and readers. Politicians are using it to push their own agenda, or worse, panicking along with their constituents.
This is a type of dishonest reporting, because the media's coverage has a tone that is not in line with the reality of the situation. This country has the medical knowledge and equipment necessary contain the virus. Feeding the ignorant panic of the public will only make things worse.
We are seeing another example of an all too common occurrence in the media today: an artificial crisis blown out of proportion, with the media and politicians feeding off of each others' fear and ignorance. Multiple governors have called for travel bans for flights incoming from West African countries, despite evidence that such a thing only making it worse. Conservatives are using the Ebola scare to fuel their arguments for increased border security, saying that Ebola infected illegal immigrants could cross the border.
Both the media and the politicians using the outbreak are aiming for one thing: an emotional response from the public. The media is looking to capitalize on people's fear of becoming infected, and so they continue non stop coverage of the inconsequential developments to drive viewership and readers. Politicians are using it to push their own agenda, or worse, panicking along with their constituents.
This is a type of dishonest reporting, because the media's coverage has a tone that is not in line with the reality of the situation. This country has the medical knowledge and equipment necessary contain the virus. Feeding the ignorant panic of the public will only make things worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)