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.

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.

"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.