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.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
"Clinton records reveal scramble in White House over Lewinsky"
Fox News article here.
For an article with so much potential for inflating the facts and showing their natural bias, Fox News did a fairly decent job of sticking to the point. The article did start off with a purely subjective opinion, however: "The release of 10,000 pages of Clinton White House papers only reinforces how his eight years in office were defined not by "the economy, stupid" or welfare legislation -- but Monica Lewinsky." Here's the thing, Fox: The only people reinforcing what defined President Clinton's term are the people who report on it. Which, as a part of the media, you are partly to blame for.
Another problem with this article is the author side-tracking halfway through to highlight some informal notes written by Hillary Clinton, with almost no context given: ""We've been so incompetent," Mrs. Clinton complained at one point, the notes show. She complained of "yet another meeting that goes nowhere, another useless conversation." Of White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, Mrs. Clinton complained that his "weakness" was that he "doesn't tell you what he doesn't know." Mrs. Clinton also complained about the absence from a critical briefing of then-White House advisor George Stephanopoulos, adding: "Make George go to briefings." Mrs. Clinton complained that the team had "no strategy to deploy resources" and asked pointedly: "Why is it we don't get it done?"'. Not only are these unnecessary, they paint Mrs. Clinton as a whining b$*%#. We are given no context for these notes, or any information on what each specific meeting was about. We only know that they have something to do with the Whitewater scandal. Not exactly objective journalism being displayed here.
For an article with so much potential for inflating the facts and showing their natural bias, Fox News did a fairly decent job of sticking to the point. The article did start off with a purely subjective opinion, however: "The release of 10,000 pages of Clinton White House papers only reinforces how his eight years in office were defined not by "the economy, stupid" or welfare legislation -- but Monica Lewinsky." Here's the thing, Fox: The only people reinforcing what defined President Clinton's term are the people who report on it. Which, as a part of the media, you are partly to blame for.
Another problem with this article is the author side-tracking halfway through to highlight some informal notes written by Hillary Clinton, with almost no context given: ""We've been so incompetent," Mrs. Clinton complained at one point, the notes show. She complained of "yet another meeting that goes nowhere, another useless conversation." Of White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, Mrs. Clinton complained that his "weakness" was that he "doesn't tell you what he doesn't know." Mrs. Clinton also complained about the absence from a critical briefing of then-White House advisor George Stephanopoulos, adding: "Make George go to briefings." Mrs. Clinton complained that the team had "no strategy to deploy resources" and asked pointedly: "Why is it we don't get it done?"'. Not only are these unnecessary, they paint Mrs. Clinton as a whining b$*%#. We are given no context for these notes, or any information on what each specific meeting was about. We only know that they have something to do with the Whitewater scandal. Not exactly objective journalism being displayed here.
Monday, September 29, 2014
"Why India's leader won't eat with Obama"
CNN article talking about India's Prime Minister visiting the US.
Let me just clarify that the content of this article is perfectly fine and dandy as far bias and honest reporting are concerned. The focus of this blog post is on the misleading headline "Why India's leader won't eat with Obama"
If you were to read that headline without clicking through to the content of the article, which studies indicate is roughly 44% of you, what would be your first impression? If you're like me, your first thought was something along the lines of "Oh why doesn't India's leader want to eat with Obama? Did Obama offend him in some way? Is he refusing to eat with Obama out of protest for some US policy he disagrees with?" After all, the President isn't always on great terms with world leaders, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel after the NSA was exposed to be spying on her personally, or highly tense relationship he has with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts. It is somewhat believable that India's prime minister also has some reason to take issue with Obama over some issue.
Turns out that the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, "will be in the middle of a strict fast for Navratri, Sanskrit for nine nights." during his visit to the US, and subsequently during his dinner with the President. Wouldn't a clearer headline, such as "Indian Prime Minister visiting US during Hindu fast" or "India's leader unable to eat during US visit", prevent the casual headline skimmer from getting the wrong idea? I understand that online news sources need to drive traffic through provocative headlines, but this does not excuse outright misdirection. Headlines are arguably more important than the content of the article itself, and should therefore be subject to more scrutiny for honest journalism.
Let me just clarify that the content of this article is perfectly fine and dandy as far bias and honest reporting are concerned. The focus of this blog post is on the misleading headline "Why India's leader won't eat with Obama"
If you were to read that headline without clicking through to the content of the article, which studies indicate is roughly 44% of you, what would be your first impression? If you're like me, your first thought was something along the lines of "Oh why doesn't India's leader want to eat with Obama? Did Obama offend him in some way? Is he refusing to eat with Obama out of protest for some US policy he disagrees with?" After all, the President isn't always on great terms with world leaders, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel after the NSA was exposed to be spying on her personally, or highly tense relationship he has with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts. It is somewhat believable that India's prime minister also has some reason to take issue with Obama over some issue.
Turns out that the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, "will be in the middle of a strict fast for Navratri, Sanskrit for nine nights." during his visit to the US, and subsequently during his dinner with the President. Wouldn't a clearer headline, such as "Indian Prime Minister visiting US during Hindu fast" or "India's leader unable to eat during US visit", prevent the casual headline skimmer from getting the wrong idea? I understand that online news sources need to drive traffic through provocative headlines, but this does not excuse outright misdirection. Headlines are arguably more important than the content of the article itself, and should therefore be subject to more scrutiny for honest journalism.
Friday, September 26, 2014
"Fewer And Fewer Unemployed Americans Receive Benefits"
Article on The Huffington Post
This heavily-biased and frankly misleading article comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum, on the liberal side. Granted, the author is very upfront in his dishonesty when he names his primary source as the Economic Policy Institute, as "the liberal Washington think tank".
The author starts with what is supposed to be a powerful statistic: "...just 25.9 percent of jobless workers were receiving unemployment insurance, the lowest rate since 1987." The addition of the word "just", and the inclusion of which year the rate was also this low, are meant to convey to the reader that this number is terribly lower than what it should be. Could this number result from the drastic improvements the job market has seen in recent years? Or could it be because unemployment insurance does in fact have an end date on it, and that a number of beneficiaries coverage has merely expired? Oh no dear reader, the author is here to set you straight: "The so-called recipiency rate has declined not because of the economy's improvement, but because of deliberate decisions by state and federal policymakers."
The author goes on to back up this statement with quoting a blog post of all sources, with the blogger of course being from the same Economic Policy Institute cited earlier. The author continues to explain that yes, Congress did cut back on benefits as the economy improved, because that is the logical thing for Congress to do once the benefits are no longer necessary. He then specifically targets Republican lawmakers in seven states, as an example of exactly who is to blame for cutting back on a program that is meant to provide relief in dire economic conditions.
The icing on the cake of misdirection that is this article has to be in the last part: "The number of long-term jobless, defined as those out of work at least six months, is falling fast but remains higher than at any other time since 1948." Another comparison in statistics with a past year that is completely out of context. Of course there is a higher number of long term jobless today versus 1948, because the population of the US (and therefore the number of jobless people) is much higher than it was in 1948. It's like pointing out that the sun is brighter at 3pm versus 8 pm.
This heavily-biased and frankly misleading article comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum, on the liberal side. Granted, the author is very upfront in his dishonesty when he names his primary source as the Economic Policy Institute, as "the liberal Washington think tank".
The author starts with what is supposed to be a powerful statistic: "...just 25.9 percent of jobless workers were receiving unemployment insurance, the lowest rate since 1987." The addition of the word "just", and the inclusion of which year the rate was also this low, are meant to convey to the reader that this number is terribly lower than what it should be. Could this number result from the drastic improvements the job market has seen in recent years? Or could it be because unemployment insurance does in fact have an end date on it, and that a number of beneficiaries coverage has merely expired? Oh no dear reader, the author is here to set you straight: "The so-called recipiency rate has declined not because of the economy's improvement, but because of deliberate decisions by state and federal policymakers."
The author goes on to back up this statement with quoting a blog post of all sources, with the blogger of course being from the same Economic Policy Institute cited earlier. The author continues to explain that yes, Congress did cut back on benefits as the economy improved, because that is the logical thing for Congress to do once the benefits are no longer necessary. He then specifically targets Republican lawmakers in seven states, as an example of exactly who is to blame for cutting back on a program that is meant to provide relief in dire economic conditions.
The icing on the cake of misdirection that is this article has to be in the last part: "The number of long-term jobless, defined as those out of work at least six months, is falling fast but remains higher than at any other time since 1948." Another comparison in statistics with a past year that is completely out of context. Of course there is a higher number of long term jobless today versus 1948, because the population of the US (and therefore the number of jobless people) is much higher than it was in 1948. It's like pointing out that the sun is brighter at 3pm versus 8 pm.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
"‘Frustration and confusion’ among US troops over mixed message on ISIS"
Fox News article talking about the US message on the ISIS
Here is a prime example of a heavily biased and misleading article concerning the White House's message on the ISIS.
The article starts with the line "America's GI "boots on the ground" in Iraq are so frustrated with the White House message about their mission against the Islamic State -- which Vice President Biden vowed Wednesday to chase "to the gates of Hell" -- that they're wondering how they'll accomplish the goal "when we can't even leave the front gate of our base.""
Quite the sentiment, right? Every single GI we have stationed in Iraq is apparently so frustrated with their Commander-in-Chief that they can hardly contain themselves. In order to make a claim like this, Fox must have interviewed dozens of US soldiers station in Iraq, and dutifully reached this conclusion in their pursuit of the facts. Actually, it turns out that this information comes from "a source in contact with special operators in Iraq told Fox News that "frustration and confusion reign" among Americans on the ground there." One source in contact with special operators? It's quite a stretch to turn that "source" into a front page headline, without some ulterior motive.
Fox is clearly playing politics with this "story" in order to make the White House look indecisive and weak. The article later goes on to quote a Republican House Representative as support for this notion. Let me remind everyone reading out home, it is in the Republican Party's interests to cast the White House in such a negative light, and anything they say in judgement should be taken with a heavy grain of salt. The entire article is biased from start to finish, with no mention of alternative perspectives into the situation. This is not honest reporting.
Here is a prime example of a heavily biased and misleading article concerning the White House's message on the ISIS.
The article starts with the line "America's GI "boots on the ground" in Iraq are so frustrated with the White House message about their mission against the Islamic State -- which Vice President Biden vowed Wednesday to chase "to the gates of Hell" -- that they're wondering how they'll accomplish the goal "when we can't even leave the front gate of our base.""
Quite the sentiment, right? Every single GI we have stationed in Iraq is apparently so frustrated with their Commander-in-Chief that they can hardly contain themselves. In order to make a claim like this, Fox must have interviewed dozens of US soldiers station in Iraq, and dutifully reached this conclusion in their pursuit of the facts. Actually, it turns out that this information comes from "a source in contact with special operators in Iraq told Fox News that "frustration and confusion reign" among Americans on the ground there." One source in contact with special operators? It's quite a stretch to turn that "source" into a front page headline, without some ulterior motive.
Fox is clearly playing politics with this "story" in order to make the White House look indecisive and weak. The article later goes on to quote a Republican House Representative as support for this notion. Let me remind everyone reading out home, it is in the Republican Party's interests to cast the White House in such a negative light, and anything they say in judgement should be taken with a heavy grain of salt. The entire article is biased from start to finish, with no mention of alternative perspectives into the situation. This is not honest reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)