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.
Monday, September 29, 2014
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)