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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)