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.

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".

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.