Post 4: Due Friday 11/4
I'm posting this EARLY because there is a typo on your calendar. I put response to post 3 down for 2 weeks in a row. Sorry.
For this post I want you to pick an issue (domestic or international) to examine in 4 papers (it can be a in 4 U.S. papers or 1 U.S. paper and 3 foreign papers). Then I want you do answer the following questions:
- What are the similarities and differences between how these papers present the news?
- Analyze whether you think these news sources are presenting the news in a biased or objective manner. Consider the following: the pictures used, the verbs/language used, who was quoted and not quoted, the headline, and how the argument was framed (ie. the vocabulary, who and what was included/ excluded from the article).
- Pick and explain which news source you think did the best job on the story or issue you choose.
Lastly I have some news sources to recommend for this project-
US news sources:
washingtonpost.com
latimes.com
foxnews.com
cnn.com
startribune.com
msnbc.msn.com
International news sources:
bbc.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
jpost.com
chinadaily.com.cn/
xinhuanet.com/english
Labels: comparison, media, media bias
posted by Ms. Aby @ 8:24 AM
31 Comments:
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/04/can-run-but-cannot-hide-from-obamacare-disaster-mr-president/
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39369615/ns/health-health_care#.TqoNWJuInqE
The Guardian (British): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/obamacare-is-victory-i-welcome?INTCMP=SRCH
China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/us/2011-01/20/content_11898652.htm
The four articles I found concerning Obamacare and the health care debate show a wide spectrum of views and reporting styles.
The two US news sources, MSNBC and Fox News were both biased and clearly indicated which audience they were written for. The Fox article pandered to conservatives, setting the tone with the negative title “You Can Run But You Cannot Hide from the ObamaCare Disaster, Mr. President”. The content of the article continued the trend, describing Obama’s “terrible public policy… disaster” and Obamacare as “perverse” and small business killing. The author went on to claim that it is a bad law that was “rammed down the throats of the public”, that it would lead to long lines at the doctor’s office like in Europe, that it would intentionally provide free care to illegal immigrants, and exasperate the national debt.
The MSNBC article reported quite the opposite, taking the stance that most Americans felt that the health care bill didn’t go far enough! It listed a number of statistics supporting the idea that most of the public desired universal healthcare, which directly contradicted Fox’s assertion that Obamacare is a terrible thing being forced on America. This represents the liberal way of thinking.
Unsurprisingly, the British article was by far the most liberal leaning as the English have a universal healthcare system. The Guardian author wrote that Obamacare was a resounding victory, a first step in the right direction for reforms, and a great thing for America. He also said that the Republicans had committed political suicide by stonewalling reform (hehe).
Finally, the Chinese article simply contained facts and presented no opinions! It gave background info, a quote from the Democrats and the Republicans, and what is likely to happen in the future. In my opinion, this article was the least biased and the most informative.
The topic I selected to analyze from the perspectives of four news sources is the controversy surrounding Herman Cain’s supposed sexual harassment of employees.
I read through articles from the Washington Post, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all of which provided subtle variations on the same theme. Overall the most negative portrayal of Cain, in my opinion, came from MSNBC, featuring nearly identical information to the other articles while adding in quotes and videos with negative titles towards Cain (1). Fox News and CNN painted a more favorable picture of Cain highlighting the incident as more of a smear campaign than a personal moral misstep (2,3). The Washington Post seemed to be the least biased of the articles I read, presenting non-inflammatory phrases and pictures (4). All of them used a similar set of quotes, however, in many cases the quotes were cropped in such a way as to make them fit into the context desired. All of the articles brought in the same set of information, they were all concerning the same topic, the only major differences was in the length of the articles with the MSNBC and CNN articles being slightly longer than the other two. The MSNBC article relied less on pictures than the others, instead opting for links to videos.
The news media is truly an interesting creature, it tries to provide facts to inform readers, but it mostly attempts to cater to a specific audience and their views making it inherently biased. Having said that I felt that the least biased piece was the one in the Washington Post. It presented mixed view of Cain, showing the negative and positive aspects of the sexual harassment controversy. In fact, the article talks very little about Cain himself as it mostly focuses on campaign staffers from the Cain and Perry, whom Cain accused of leaking the information, campaigns delegated to resolve the issue (4). Fox News focused on the event being more of a smear campaign, clearly siding with Cain, or at the very least favoring the positive, and discussed the accusations made by the Cain, Perry and Romney campaigns. The article also used quotes that very clearly support Cain and portray him as a good person and gentleman. The article poked at the accusers, the women that filed suit against Cain in the ‘90’s and how they have not revealed their identities and have only mentioned a little bit about themselves (2). CNN provided another sympathetic view of the situation, and like Fox supported Cain. This was achieved by, again, the use of quotes that show nothing but respect for Cain. CNN also called the whole situation a smear campaign and put a large amount of emphasis on the accusations being presented (3). MSNBC, on the other hand was much more critical of the situation, interjecting with links to videos of Cain refusing to speak to reporters, in essence putting him in a less favorable light. I also felt that the it used fewer glowing quotes about Cain, and the ones it did use were merely to help summarize the event. I feel that part of the air of criticism comes from the well-known liberal bias of MSNBC, but I feel that it helps make it more accurate telling of events, regardless of the negative spin (1).
Overall the most accurate, least biased news source was the Washington post. This was mostly because it covered a broad spectrum of results of the scandal, negative aspects like the blaming flying around as well as positive items, as in the scandal helped Cain fund-raise by garnering support from outraged followers. It also didn’t bring in unneeded pictures and phrases designed to help or hurt Cain.
1http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45156001/ns/politics-decision_2012/#.TrMPr82gfww
2http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/03/cain-accusers-both-work-in-government-related-jobs/?test=latestnews
3http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/02/cain-blames-perry-consultant-for-sexual-harassment-leak/?iref=allsearch
4http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/herman-cain-denies-new-harassment-allegations-accuses-rick-perry-of-fueling-stories/2011/11/02/gIQAYKLogM_story.html?hpid=z3
The New York Times:http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/occupy-wall-street-meets-tahrir-square/?scp=9&sq=occupy%20wall%20street&st=cse
Almasry Alyoum: http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/504026
The New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/lord_of_flies_in_zuccotti_park_Ce6a6psjtBX8Tgly0u0PbL
People’s Daily: http://english.people.com.cn/90777/7611506.html
The four articles that I chose all pertain to the “Occupy Wall Street” protests occurring across the US, specifically in New York City. The first article I chose is from the New York Times, and it likened the “Occupy” protests to the revolution that occurred in Egypt. While there are definite differences (“no protesters have been killed, there have been no demands for the president to step down and no crowds swelling above six figures,”) the protest in Zuccotti Park in New York City is using the same tactics used in the Arab Spring occupation, which began in December 2010. The article from Almasry Alyoum, a daily Egyptian newspaper, echoes the fact that NYC’s “Occupy” protests appear to have Arab inspiration. It states that activist groups in Egypt actually helped plan the protests, but reassures the US government that they should not fear that the protests will escalate to Arab Spring proportions, because the protestors are not asking for the government to change, just that they change their economic policies. This article also talked about how organizations in other countries that want change are optimistic, as they have never before seen a protest that has spread as globally as “Occupy Wall Street.” The article from the People’s Daily is also optimistic about the protests, saying that “the Americans in the bottom of the society are the people who less participate in the politics, so their demands are rarely to be known by the policy-makers,” and the protests gives them a chance to make their voices heard. The standout article among the four that I chose was from the New York Post. It is extremely snarky and in no way supports the demonstration. It talks about how the protest in New York is causing trouble, but it is entertaining to watch the protestors suffer. It also implies that the protestors hope to “run the world.”
The New York Times article is not biased; it simply presents the idea that “Occupy Wall Street” may have been influenced by the revolution in Egypt. This article is very reliable. They refer to an Egyptian man who sells falafel near Zuccotti Park where the protests are being held. I was there two weeks ago and I legitimately bought falafel from this man. The falafel was delicious and this man is totally real, not someone made up to embellish the story. While I did not meet all of the other protestors, I assume they are real and this article uses quotes from them to back up its points. However, it lacks quotes from experts. The article from the New York Post does nothing to inform readers about the “Occupy” protests, but instead assumes they know all about it and thus just offers criticism. The article says that a far-left organization is sponsoring the protest, and “its web site says,” it sponsors groups in the Gaza strip, indicating that the author never actually contacted a person from this group to find out what they were about. I think that the article from Almasry Alyoum did the best job of reporting on this issue because it clearly represented both sides. It talked about some countries that saw the protests as a good thing, and others that used them as propaganda against capitalism (China). The article also included the opinions of experts from various fields.
I chose to cover the "Occupy" protests as I have been watching them through the American media since their beginning and wanted to see a little more about what the rest of the world had to say. To start off, I read an article from the Washington Post about the movements occurring in Oakland (1). Using an array of pictures that are very eliciting and could be likened to the documentation of the LA riots, the article speaks exclusively on the clashing with police that occurred on Wednesday and the port of Oakland being shut down. It also gives credit to the protesters that occupied the port and their denouncing of violence and destructive tactics. The article still does, however, have an air of suspicion about where the protests have the potential to go from here. The second article was from the Star Tribune, to see what the Minnesota press thought about the Occupy movement (2). The particular subject of this article, however, is the veterans that marched in New York in response to the injury of Marine Corps veteran Scott Olsen, who was injured by a law enforcement projectile and remains hospitalized for his fractured skull. The veterans on Wall Street, a myriad from all branches, made it clear that they were tired of being the laymen of wars that they believe are orchestrated and profited on by companies of the 1%. The article highlights the very dense police presence at the site of the veterans' protest, most likely due to fear of violence from combat veterans and servicemen diagnosed with PTSD. Many of the protesters, however, openly defended the case for their peaceful demonstration, illustrating the calm demeanor of the veterans and the complete lack of arms of any kind. The first international article I read, from BBC, utilized the concept of "occupy" being a result of the setting in of global economic permafrost (3). The author argues that the main driving passion behind the protests is yet to be fully realized by most of the public, as well as the media, and that is that this is a universal feeling. Saying that, "for every protester camped in the freezing dawn there may be many more quietly fuming in their living rooms who feel the same way.", the author argues that we are on the verge of something that could be something very very big in world history. With the 4th and final article coming from the Arab media source Aljazeera, we return to the pictures and mood of rioting. However, this paper paints a very different perspective based on the protesters' point of view. According to the majority of their witnesses, police brutality was exercised a number of times in Oakland with police going on the offensive with rubber projectiles and repeatedly assaulting campsites with tear gas and riot-control tactics. Though not explicitly stating such, the article gives a very noble air to the plight of the occupy protesters, speaking highly of their ability to continue to persevere in light of police repression. Although it is clear that outside the U.S., the media is taking a more positive stance on the protests and their purpose, I couldn't help but share this satire with anyone who has taken the time to read this far (5).
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/occupy-oakland-protesters-clash-with-police-temporarily-shut-down-port/2011/11/03/gIQAe9AYjM_story.html
(2) http://www.startribune.com/nation/133135533.html?page=2&c=y
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15326636
(4) http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/10/20111026135124919772.html
(5) https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-vi-1HwWutzU/TpD_WvMz_oI/AAAAAAAADtY/6DCmu2LrV6g/Demotivational%2B-%2BOccupy%2BWall%2BStreet%2BStraw%2BMan%2BFallacy.jpg
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bachmann-to-outline-thoughts-on-economy-in-session-with-iowa-state-students/2011/11/03/gIQAwrVihM_story.html
Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/02/veterans-to-march-with-occupy-wall-street-protesters/
MSNBC
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/13/8306261-occupy-wall-street-more-popular-than-tea-party
CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/world.view/?iref=allsearch
The four articles that I chose were concerning the "Occupy Wallstreet" movement. All these articles are American but are also diverse.
The first article is from the washington post and is about Michele Bachman. This article is certanily bias it talks about how Bachman thinks that instead of protesting buiness the demonsrtators should be protesting current government officials. The second article I found was from fox news. This article was not bias but was baisically irrelevent. The article talked about how veterens plan to join the movement. The third article is from msnbc and is for all intents and purposes pointless. The article is just filled with stats showing that the movement is more popular then the tea party, showing a bias towards the movement. The fourth article from cnn is much like the msnbc one in that it just talks about the popularity of the movement.
These four articles all talk about the "occupy wallstreet" movement but they all talk about irrelevent points and barely give any substatial details about the movement. The very few details about the movement are clouded by bias.
Article 1: “Occupy protesters block Oakland port entrance,” Los Angeles Times, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-protesters-block-oakland-port-entrance.html
Article 2: “Oakland port is shut down by Occupy protesters,” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/oakland-port-shut-down-occupy
Article 3: “Police clash with ‘Occupy Oakland’ protesters,” Al Jazeera, http://english.aljazeera.net/video/americas/2011/11/201111261013246133.html
Article 4: “Thousands go on strike in US city Oakland,” Xinhua News, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/03/c_131226747.htm
I decided to compare domestic and international articles on the Occupy Oakland protest. For my domestic article, I chose one from the Los Angeles Times (Article 1). I thought this would be interesting, as Los Angeles and Oakland are in the same state, and the LA Times might therefore have a different perspective than other papers in the country. The overall goal of the article seems to be convincing people that things are back to normal or will be shortly. The violent incidents described in other articles are glossed over or avoided entirely. “Violent clashes with the police” are briefly mentioned, but after that the article focuses more on a return to the status quo. It describes the mainly peaceful nature of the protest and the clean-up afterward. A quick reference is made to the fact that some protesters were hospitalized, but no details are given, in contrast to other articles. The article ends with a quote from Karen Boyd, a spokeswoman for Oakland: “The city of Oakland remains open for business.” To me, this article shows that the LA Times admits there were protests, but is now trying to gloss over them and move on. They don’t want people to believe that they should avoid traveling to the area or doing business with them. They are biased in favor of their own self-interest.
Interestingly, the British newspaper The Guardian (Article 2) is much more detailed than the LA Times. It gives much more background on what exactly is being protested and what forms of protest are being used. There is also much more of an explanation on how the protesters shut down the Oakland port, which was only briefly referenced in the LA Times article. This article tells that $39 billion in imports and exports travel through the port every year, which explains why the LA Times article was so eager to promote their own interests and say that everything was back to normal. Another fact discussed in this article and not the first one is that many teachers left schools to participate in the protests. More detail is given in general about who participated in the protest and why. While this article does not explicitly take a side, it does give much more information from the perspective of the protesters than the city. It seems to have a slight bias in favor of the protesters, but it is not nearly as biased as the LA Times article.
(Continued in next post)
The article from Al Jazeera (Article 3) has the most biased headline of any of the articles: “Police clash with ‘Occupy Oakland’ protesters.” By using a negative word like “clash,” this headline clearly sides with the protesters. Also, putting the police first – “police clash with protesters” rather than “protesters clash with police” – places the blame firmly on the police. However, this strongly biased headline seems to contrast with the actual article a bit. While the article certainly does discuss the use of tear gas and other violent methods used by the police, it also mentions that there has been a notable lack of police involvement. It also discusses the violent and disruptive methods used by the protesters almost equally. This article represents several other perspectives as well. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan is discussed several times, and the views of labor leaders are given as well. Quan, as well as other city officials, and the labor leaders are described as supporting the goals of the protesters but not joining the movement themselves or entirely agreeing with the methods. While it does give more attention to members of the movement and those who support at least part of it, this article represents more points of view than any of the others and comes off as less biased. This is especially odd considering its very biased headline.
My last article is from the Chinese Xinhua News (Article 4). This article is mainly focused on giving a factual description of the events. Almost all the parts of the issue from other articles are represented: the actions of the protesters, the actions of the police, the views of city officials, and the participation of the teachers. However, very few details are given about any of these issues. Most are discussed in one or two sentences before the article moves on. While the article doesn’t seem to have much bias, this is because it also doesn’t contain much information.
I think the Al Jazeera article was the best of the articles I read. It did contain a small amount of bias toward the protesters, but it was minimal and some degree of bias is impossible to avoid unless you happen to be a robot. The Xinhua News article was generally less biased, but it also gave much less information and detail. The Al Jazeera article presented multiple perspectives and gave detailed information. Its headline was the most biased thing about it. I found it interesting that all of the international articles were more useful than the U. S. article. This is probably because the LA Times was closest to the issue and had to consider their own business interests more than any of the others.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/10/hypocrisy-and-west
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/21/qaddafi-is-gone-but-other-us-foes-remain/
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/20111020111520869621.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44971257/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/libyas-moammar-gadhafi-killed-hometown-battle/#.TrNJW7JbX1o
For my topic I chose to look into coverage of Moammer Gadhafi's death. I chose to examine the Economist, Fox News, MSNBC, and Aljazeera.
Aljazeera presented the death in a very factual manner. Lacking concrete, known details about the circumstances, Aljazeera quoted the de facto leader of Libya' position on what had happened, and made note of what videos had surfaced. Also included was a summary of what has been confirmed to have happened to relatives of Gadhafi and prominent advisors to Gadhafi. Official reactions of the people of Libya, the United States, NATO, and the UN were included as a finisher. About the only thing this article lacked to be truly objective was an opposing viewpoint- but, given the topic, anyone who might offer an opposing viewpoint is hiding from Libya's National Transitional Council! All in all, very good.
The Economist did not pay much attention to this issue. About the only article I located was an analysis of hypocrisy in Western culture and its role in killing tyrants. The news is not what's important; it's the analysis that counts. The analysis is equally skeptical of all sides, questioning the rebels' methods as well as the reasons why the United States cheered them on when they had so recently condemned the resolution of the Sri Lankan civil war by the rebels there. It then proceeds to comment on the effects of his death in China, in North Korea, and in Myanmar. Gadhafi is much less important than the effects he caused in this article. With the questioning of U.S. motives, bias is slanted away from conservatives and towards liberals.
Fox News also did not have a single article devoted specifically to announcing Gadhafi's death. The closest I could find here was an article entitled "Qaddafi Is Gone But Other U.S. Foes Remain," urging Americans not to lose vigilance because the United States is so adept at killing dictators. Paraphrasing: While we are skilled, we must be wary of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Oh, and the Taliban might make a comeback, we'd have to smash them again. Since we're so powerful we make a big target, but all those who have challenged us have DIED. We must always be vigilant, though, because even once we're done killing all of our current foes, dictators in Belarus, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, and Sudan will probably betray us. We're just that awesome. Oh, and Gadhafi left Libya with an interesting set of problems, but that's not important. Paraphrase over. In case you hadn't noticed, there is a slight conservative slant to this article...
MSNBC used eyewitness accounts- as many as could be gathered- to attempt to construct a realistic picture of Gadhafi's death and subsequent reactions of people. There is general agreement about how the Libyan people felt it might have been good to have him tried but are basically just relieved that' he's dead. There is no agreement whatsoever about how he died. This article severely plays down U.S. involvement, emphasizing that it was NATO who led the bombing campaigns. It plays up how good it is for the revolutionaries to have won. There is a slight but not utterly disgusting liberal slant at work here.
Aljazeera offered the best presentation of Gadhafi's death. Both Fox and MSNBC were biased, one way or another. The Economist was not too biased, but did not particularly address circumstances except in passing, so they did not do a very good job for this particular topic. Aljazeera lacked significant bias, presented the facts as best as able, and did not try to radically spin the news. I feel that they were the strongest.
For my topic I chose Greece’s debt deal and the Prime Minister’s referendum flip-flop.
The CNN article (1) was a collaboration piece by five geographically distinct writers, which helped to limit overall bias. The article is fairly balanced when you examine the quotes used, as there are several from Papandreou, but also many from other sources such as the leader of the opposition movement, the finance minister, and scholars. This article is not meant to sway opinions one way or the other, but the diction suggests that there is a deeper meaning. When the writers refer to the referendum, they refer to “market chaos” and “debt woes”, and when referring to Greece’s economic situation, phrases such as “threatening” and “financial jitters” are used. The quotes about Papandreou paint him in a negative light, using words like “untrustworthy”. Although negative connotations are found in some of the specific words, CNN balances almost every point they make with a second, showing both sides of the issue and heavily layering the facts for readers. One example is found in the explanation of the debt deal that is proposed to Greece: The elements of the deal that are discussed are the more extreme provisions, but the article also states that Greece can refuse the deal without being forced out of the euro zone. Although most of the information within the article is balanced, the information about Papandreou is nearly all negative, referring to his “rambling speech” and loss of support. This bias is accurately depicting the political climate however, as Papandreou is on the theoretical chopping block among the Greek public.
The Fox News article (2) heavily relies on diction to stir up emotion from readers. Papandreou is almost explicitly blamed for investors’ reactions to Greece’s situation, as the article states that he “sparked a global crisis”. Other phrases are used such as “abandoned”, “explosive plan”, “triggering turmoil”, “political drama” to depict Papandreou as the responsible individual for Greece’s financial situation. The only quotes that are used come from Papandreou himself, and the Finance Minister (who is actually written about favorably, with the article referring to his opposition of the referendum). The quote by Papandreou is still fairly weak, and does little to offset the comment that he is ignoring “widespread” calls for his resignation. The title, along with a portion of the article, also depicts Papandreou as manipulative and indecisive. The fact that Papandreou is “scrapping” the referendum plan makes it seem like he cannot formulate a cohesive plan for action. Towards the end of the article, it is also mentioned that Papandreou never intended for the referendum to take place, which makes readers view him as manipulative and fault-worthy. Overall, the Fox News piece is slightly biased against the supposed indecision of Greece to pass the debt proposal, and places the majority of the blame on the Prime Minister.
The Star Tribune article (3) is also fairly biased against Papandreou, but more evidence is used to support this claim. Papandreou is blamed for the chaos in Greece, and multiple quotes from the Finance Minister (Venizelos) substantiate both the fact that the referendum is unnecessary, and the idea that Papandreou is greatly at fault. Samaras (the opposition leader) is also quoted, which balances out the bias of only reporting once side of an issue. Samaras also backs the fact that Papandreou is only making things more complicated by flip-flopping and refusing to be replaced. The last half of the article provides an excellent explanation of how the debt deal would work, and what public opinion is reflecting. Less inflammatory words are used in this article, but there are references to “drama” and “chaos”. This article shows the timeline of events clearly, and cites the most facts regarding debt figures, opinion polls, and what needs to occur next for Greece. This article is the most objective out of the four, as nearly every claim that the article makes is backed up by poll results, several quotes, or financial data. This article also does the most to explain the current economic situation that Greece faces, instead of using inflammatory words to point blame without any real information that the readers can assess themselves.
The Athens News article takes a very different vantage point from the other sources, and places the majority of the blame on France and Germany as opposed to Papandreou. In fact, references to Papandreou allude to the fact that he is being presented with limited options due to the political pressure from the EU. The referendum is also shown as simply a tool for gauging public opinion, as Sarkozy and Merkel will still do what they deem is best for the future of Greece. This article does not overly-rely on inflammatory words, with only one clear dig about the “public humiliation” that Papandreou faced due to Sarkozy/Merkel. Although this article says less about Papandreou, it does acknowledge the public’s anger towards him. However, Merkel and Sarkozy are still depicted as the individuals as fault. As this is a Greek news source, the blaming of other countries is seen as a source of bias in this piece.
The news sources are pretty consistent in their methods of presenting the news, but the major difference is found in how they appeal to readers. Fox News uses specific words to dramatize the situation which makes people read more, thinking that everything is urgent. CNN uses the back-and-forth of opinions and quotes to present two distinct arguments which help readers to formulate their own closing stance. Star Tribune uses both quotes and data to analyze the situation in a way that leaves readers feeling like they better understand the issue as a whole. The Athens News appeals to the citizens of Greece, by presenting a different opinion that distinguishes Greece away from the blame. The largest similarity between the sources was the use of quotes as evidence, and for the most part they flowed well within the context of the articles.
Sources:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/world/europe/greece-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
2. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/03/greece-on-brink-collapse-as-lawmakers-urge-prime-minister-to-resign/
3. http://www.startribune.com/business/133141828.html
4. http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/11/49950
I picked the issue of the wall street protests because it affects the entire world. I chose these newspapers because I've been to all of the countries, thus I can relate more to them. I noticed that our Star Tribune and the BBC are very similar in news content. They list multiple facts and try to avoid being biased. They are also similar in the ways they deal with the five W questions and explain each of them. The Chinese newspaper is the most different out of all of them because it only gives an overview of the issue and tries to downplay the issue. When I was over in China, I could really feel the sense that the Chinese government didn't want people to know about the outside world and would highly sensor anything that was bad. The Chinese article does a good job of demonstrating my point. As for the South African and Greek newspaper, I found that they did an alright job describing the issue, but left out some facts. They were more focused on who is to blame and how the protestors are protesting.
The Start Tribune and BBC article has no bias because they told both sides. This is similar to the Greek article which I found was weird because I would think that Greek people would be with the protestors. The Greek article focused on the blame, but did a good job of presenting both sides. Another surprising non-biased article was the South African newspaper. I thought that South Africans would favor the protestors because the protestors were trying to stop the trade with other countries. Since South Africans make most of their money from their own industries in their own country, I thought that they would try to reason that domestic industries are more profitable that trade with China and other Asian countries. It's hard to say if the Chinese newspaper is biased or not because the Chinese government manipulates the press.
I think that the BBC article did the best job on the wall street protests because they provided good facts and different opinions that represented everyone. They also gave information about how this is impacting the rest of the world.
Greece article- http://www.athensnews.gr/issue/13465/49189
South African article- http://www.news24.com/World/News/Protesters-shut-down-US-port-20111103
BBC- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15568057
Star Tribune- http://www.startribune.com/local/133109723.html
China- http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/world/2011-11/03/content_14031936.htm
The topic that I chose to write about is the Herman Cain harassment scandal. The four aritcles that I read portrayed this scandal very differently. Of these articles, two of them stated that Herman Cain blamed Perry and his campaign for leaking the scandal. Even after Perry’s strategist Curt Anderson assured Cain, and the public that no one in Perry’s campaign had anything to do with this leak, Cain still blamed Perry, but backed down a little. (1 & )2 Another article talked about how the media wanted to know more about what Cain had to say about the scandal, and the women that were thinking about coming forward publicly than they did about Cain’s healthcare policy. (3) The last article showed how Cain was trying to say that he was being funny, and people may have taken it the wrong way, but that the country need to loosen up and have a sense of humor. (4) The Washington Post allowed a fact based account of this situation, quoting both people from Cain’s and Perry’s campaign, and also others involved with the harassment situation when it happened. (1) The second article gave another fact based account, quoting again people from both campaigns, yet the article still showed that even though Anderson denied any involvement, Cain and his campaign still suspect them of the leak. (2) The LA Times showed the media’s reaction to the scandal since all they wanted to know about was answers about the harassment and the women, but nothing about what he was going to a meeting to talk about, his healthcare plan. (3) The Star Tribune showed that Cain was just trying to joke about it, and didn’t seem to take the scandal serious, but at the same time show him in a negative light because of how joking he is about the matter. The article keeps quoting Cain in saying that the United States have to get a “sense of humor.” (4) I feel that the Washington Post article did the best in explaining this situation because of the unbiased tone it presented, how it quoted both campaigns and also others involved in the claims from when they happened. This article also points out how Cain reacted somewhat badly to a some reporters by snapping at them and saying “Don’t even bother asking me all of these other questions that you all are curious about, okay?” (1) This article also says that Cain accused Perry’s campaign of leaking the story, and that he accused them because Perry’s strategist had known about the harassment claims when he worked for one of Cain’s previous campaigns. (1) So not only does this article explain what has happened, it also explains why some of it has happened, and in as objective a light as possible, thus doing the best job out of all four of my articles.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/herman-cain-denies-new-harassment-allegations-accuses-rick-perry-of-fueling-stories/2011/11/02/gIQAYKLogM_story_1.html
2. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/03/cain-campaign-backs-claims-anderson-behind-smear-campaign
3. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-capitol-20111102,0,1224533.story
4. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/133135933.html
I chose the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegation case to analyze from different news sources. The first source I looked at was CNN. This article did a good job presenting the news rather objectively. There were quotes from people on all sides, there were many quotes from Cain himself, defending his actions and his campaign, but there were also quotes from Politico as well as Curt Anderson, the former aide and current Perry campaign worker. There was a video along with the article, and it was from the perspective of Curt Anderson. This mostly upheld Anderson’s and Perry’s side of the story, which relates to the leakage of the news. The video allowed Anderson to talk, which seems fair in the article, considering there were many quotes that related to Cain’s initial blame as well as his later softening. The argument was framed in a way that was serious and investigative towards Cain but also not particularly accusatory. Instead of taking much of a stand on what happened within the issue itself, it mostly discussed the way the story was unfolding in politics.
My next source was Fox News. It was a transcript from the show “On the Record” with special guest Donald Trump. This article starts off by talking about how the Cain campaign won’t take any of the accusations lying down and are in fact demanding an apology from Rick Perry and his campaign. It also points out that all of the newest news on the story comes from a source that is backed by a Rick Perry super-PAC and thus cannot be trusted. Not only that, but they discuss how Rick Perry owes Herman Cain and his family an apology. Donald Trump comes on the show and defends Cain. He says that if is “very unfair” and he calls it “ridiculous” and “a witch hunt”. These are words that certainly show a bias towards Herman Cain. He seems to paint it as a non-issue, stating that he could have said “Hey Darling, how are you?” and gotten such a response due to meddling lawyers and HR firms. He does not think it is a fair situation and he claims he does not think it will negatively affect the campaign as long as nothing comes of the allegations. I think there is a good chance that he is trying to do some damage control for Cain because he ahs an investment, either in a republican president in general (which he obviously does because he is Donald Trump) or else he is invested in one way or another in Cain’s campaign.
The third article I looked at regarding this story was from TODAY news on msnbc.com. This article was mostly focused on the intense blame game that is following the sexual harassment allegations. The first half of the article talks about the blame being placed on the Perry campaign and aides from the Cain camp. The second part of the article goes on to talk about the blame that the Perry camp is putting on Mitt Romney and his campaign. It appears that this article is trying to mock the intra-party mudslinging that is currently happening within the Republican party. Quotes such as “The back-and-forth accusations made up the prevailing storyline on Thursday, coming on the heels of an AP report on Wednesday that detailed a claim from a third former employee” point out the back and forth nature of the debate and make it seem somewhat immature. Not only that but the last paragraph does not portray Cain in the best light. It is about Cain’s reactions to the media and the paragraph header alone is “Cain gets testy towards reporters” making him seem irrational
The final article I read on this issue was from the Huffington Post. The article is on the issue of the possible legal attack that the Cain campaign could be launching against Politico for leaking this story that they believe have no factual evidence whatsoever. However, Politico made comments about how they have not heard anything about legal action being taken against them. Not only that, it makes the argument that “Cain, meanwhile, has made inconsistent remarks in addressing the controversy. The former Godfather's Pizza CEO has maintained that he has never sexually harassed anyone and his campaign hasn't held back in engaging in the blame game.” Which make him seem unsure due to his inconsistencies as well as immature due to his playing of the blame game.
I would say that the CNN source did the best job of telling the story of this controversy because it talked about the most aspects of the issue, as well as representing both sides. There were quotes from all parties involved and the language used in the article seemed less charged and connotative than the language used in the other articles. There were also simply more facts and statistics, making it seem like the most legitimate and helpful article if the goal is to simply learn the most you can about the topic at hand.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/politics/cain-allegations/
2. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2011/11/03/trump-blasts-unfair-witch-hunt-cain
3. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45138165/ns/today-today_news/t/cain-camp-points-perry-harassment-leak/#.TrNWeuX-a5M
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/herman-cain-politico-lawsuit_n_1075169.html
I decided to focus on the varying presentations of the Occupy Wall Street protests in four different American media sources. The Star Tribune article is definitely the only article out of the four which very biased towards the protesters [1]. Although, it does have views from the critics of the Occupy Wall Street protest, they are far outnumbered by the supporters and heart-wrenching stories included in the article. For instance, some letters are summarized by the writers’ painful testimonies about their economic struggles [1]. Additionally, the Star Tribune article has contains many facts that support the protester’s arguments. It discusses how Congressional Budget Office recently discovered that over the last thirty years, America’s top 1% have greatly increased their wealth, while the middle class and poor have gained little [1]. Furthermore, the Star Tribune focuses on the wide spread support of the movement by making the main idea of the article based on letters and donations given to the protesters by both Americans and people worldwide. This includes a heartwarming story on how a woman is baking cookies for the protestors due to the fact she is unable to join the protestors [1]. With the combination of varied supporters from international supporters, grandmother like figures, and self-employed handymen gives the message that Occupy Wall Street is supported by the majority of society, contributing to the strong bias of the article.
On the other side of the spectrum, the Washington Post article is taking a very negative stance on the Occupy Wall Street protests [2]. Compared to all of the other articles, this is the most biased against the protestors. Contrasting to the Star Tribune article, it discusses opposers of Occupy Wall Street, such as policemen and government leaders, who are attempting to shut down the protests. Starting with the first line of the article, the protestors get a bad name. It uses words with negative connotations such as “arrested,” “clashed with police,” and “officers dragged them” to put the protestors in a negative light of being unruly and rebellious. Furthermore, the four pictures included in the article show images of protestors getting arrested and police monitoring them. It gives off a vibe that the protestors are unlawful citizens, especially when the subtitle states police are on horses and are preparing riot gear [2]. While the Star Tribune article depicts the protestors as being a strong and positive force, Washington Post
views them as nuisance by “wearing at the patience of city officials’ [2]. In support of this statement, the article discusses how protestors in Portland, Oregon ignored police warnings about occupying more than two parks. In the end, around thirty protesters were dragged from the scene and arrested [2].
Fox News takes an interesting twist on Occupy Wall Street by focusing on how protestors are facing the predicament of what to do with the overwhelming amount of finical donations towards the cause [3]. Contrasting to the extreme biases of the Star Tribune and Washington Post articles, this article is overall quite objective with only a slight bias towards the protestors. It starts off by acknowledging what “once [was] a rag-tag group” has grown to the point that they have raised over five hundred thousand dollars, a much larger sum than expected [3]. Other than this somewhat biased first paragraph, the article is very good at stating facts about the group such as it’s lack of leaders and possible plans for dealing with this large sum of money in an object manner [3]. Even the title of the piece shows how this article’s main focus is to discuss the debate on issue of “how to deal with $500,000 in Donations,” rather than analyzing the ideas of the protestors [3]. At the end of the article, the quote from Chuck Kaufman shows little bias by stating this is an issue the protestors have never faced and they are going to come up with a solution.
Personally, I believe the CNN article did the best job on the issue because of it’s objective views on Occupy Wall Street [4]. In addition, contrasting to the other articles, CNN focuses on Occupy Wall Street as a whole as opposed to a specific aspect of the protest. I think this stance on the issue is much more informative and unbiased for the reader by showing the whole picture of the protest instead of just one small aspect of the movement. Rather than telling the reader what to think, the title of the article, “How do you measure success for Occupy Wall Street movement?” specifically asks the readers their own opinion [4]. Similar to the objective title, this article begins with a list of unanswered questions for the reader to ponder. Unlike the other articles which used very few quotes and opinions from other sources, CNN shows readers more than six different viewpoints on the issue including opinions from a variety of people including an economist, member of the American Enterprise Institute, editor of the International Business Times, and even Google [4]. This gives the reader plenty of chances to form their own opinion on Occupy Wall Street, while allowing them to see arguments from across the spectrum. At the end of the article, it asks the readers to contribute their own opinions, after reading the article, on Occupy Wall Street. This is the only article out of the four that really focuses on giving the reader multiple viewpoints and encouraging the reader to formulate their own opinions.
[1] http://www.startribune.com/nation/132927338.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/occupy-protesters-arrested-in-texas-oregon-in-many-cities-its-the-cold-theyre-fighting/2011/10/30/gIQASSS4WM_story.html
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/27/occupy-wall-street-protesters-debate-how-to-deal-with-500000-in-donations/
[4]http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/31/how-do-you-measure-success-for-occupy-wall-street-movement/?iref=allsearch
For my topic, I chose the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, and for my sources I used the NYTimes, the Washington Times, The Guardian, and the Xinhuanet.
The NYTimes article was fairly biased, against Herman Cain. Special mention was made of his now-viral commercial featuring the close-up of the smoking man, in a thinly veiled attempt to throw any criticism possible into the article. The article is focused on the accounts of several anonymous people, who presumably worked with Cain during his tenure as President of the National Resturant Association. Where the other articles were more broad, and questioned the legitimacy of the claims, the NYTimes article didn’t question the veracity one bit, simply assuming the claims are true. This is where the biggest bias shows, as the NYTimes (I think) can’t be 100% sure the claims are true, yet they are printing them anyway. This is shown in the title of the article: “Woman Said to Have Felt Hostility at Work After Complaining About Cain.” In terms of his denial, it was mentioned, but always with a caveat. “Mr. Cain has repeatedly denied that he did anything inappropriate, though he has acknowledged that at least one severance payment was made to an accuser. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the new accounts of the incident on Thursday evening.” Another tactic used by the NYTimes is to paint Cain as erratic, shown by the paper’s characterization of his responses: “Mr. Cain has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing or inappropriate conduct, alternately describing the accusations as “a witch hunt” by the news media, a political vendetta from liberals and a plot by operatives for a Republican rival, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. And in a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Cain said he did not flirt with or proposition any women he worked with, calling such charges a “fabrication.”
The Washington Times article was definitely more biased towards Cain, or at least somewhat neutral. However, the biggest contrast between this article and the NYTimes article is in this one the veracity of the claims isn't assumed; it’s questioned. Another difference between this article and the NYTimes one is that the WashTimes article mentions some non-harassment-related Cain news, perhaps in an attempt to distract from the unfolding possible scandal. There is also a ‘softening’ of some of the info put forth by Cain; “He has said the woman initially asked for a large financial settlement but ultimately received two to three months’ pay as part of a separation agreement. Mr. Cain also acknowledged remembering one of the woman’s accusations against him, saying he stepped close to her to make a reference to her height and told her she was the same height as his wife.” While nor denying the charges althogether, this certainly makes the case that they were frivolous and unnecessary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Guardian article has a distinct tone compared to the domestic sources. It definitely has more of an ‘outsider’ tone to it, characterized by more info and less commentary. Neutral language such as “amended” drives home the lack of bias, which is quite refreshing compared to the partisan pieces I just read. However, at the end of the article there might be a slight backhanded comment directed towards America in general; “The former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza is the surprise candidate of the Republican race so far, rising to the top of the polls despite having no political or foreign policy experience.” I see this as possibly a mocking of the American political system, where the Guardian is pointing out the unbelieveabilty of a candidate with no political experience.
The Xinhuanet is the most concise, but also the most neutral, mainly due to the fact that there simply isn’t enough there to create a voice. It’s the basic facts and nothing else, no elaboration or inferences being made, simply the facts. While this would be nice for someone who had no idea what’s going on in the Republican candidate race, e.g. many Chinese citizens, for me it isn’t very useful, as I know much of the facts already.
In my opinion, the Guradian article was by far the most informative and useful, the NYTimes article had too much speculation, the WashTimes article had too little about the harassment case, so the Guardian article is the best for information. Apart from the possible anti-American bias, it is also the most politically neutral.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/us/politics/woman-said-to-feel-work-hostility-after-alleged-encounter-with-cain.html?ref=politics
2. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/2/amid-harassment-furor-cain-visits-capitol-hill/?page=1
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/04/herman-cain-faces-public-airing-harassment
4 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-10/31/c_
There’s nothing the media likes more than a little bit of scandal, which is why I chose the recent Herman Cain scandal for this post. I thought it would be interesting to see how newspapers were depicting the biggest scandal to hit the GOP presidential campaign thus far. The four articles I chose for this post come from both national (NY Times and USA Today) and international (BBC news and The Guardian) news associations. Initially I was surprised at how similar the articles portrayed the scandal, but I figured that this was due to the fact that all these allegations are in the early stages so it’s more difficult to take vastly different stances. Generally, these articles cast a bit of a negative light on Herman Cain but did so through focusing on different aspects of the scandal.
The first article I looked at was from the NY Times. Although the article did provide some good information regarding the scandal, the way it presented the information wasn’t in the most scholarly manner but was quite entertaining to read. It basically mocked the whole blame game that has been going on since the news broke, paying especially close attention to all the people Cain’s campaign is blaming. The blame has been placed on pretty much so anyone and everyone except some of the other GOP contenders (those other than Romney and Perry) who, as this article points out, “no one is talking about them, so perhaps they wish they had been blamed.” The best part of the article had to be the author’s comparison of the whole blame game to a song called ‘Blame it on Cain’; The lyrics of the song go perfectly with this situation although it is completely mocking it. The whole article gave a ridiculous edge to this scandal, and wasn’t overly informational.
The second source I looked at was from USA Today. This article provided a decent amount of information, though it was a pretty simplistic approach. It gave some information regarding both the allegations and Cain’s handling of the situation. I would have to say that this article had a bit of a bias against Cain. The message that this article wanted to get out was that Cain was not handling the situation very well and that his patience was “wearing thin” which is not good since it won’t be going away anytime soon. It particularly notes Cain’s recent “outburst” when reporters kept asking him questions about the allegations. This article was a bit more believable than the first and focused on a different viewpoint than the previous one which was nice to get to see all dimensions the story has to offer. Overall, the article did provide some good information, but was kind of thin on the details.
The third source was and international one from BBC News. Out of the four sources I looked at I found this one to be the most objective on reporting the scandal and provided quite a bit of information from both sides of the issue, making it the best of all the articles. It utilized information presented from other credible news sources (Politico, Forbes) to deliver its story, and had comments from many different viewpoints. In addition, the language used throughout this article was fairly moderate and didn’t offer a strong opinion/ stance on the scandal. I really found this article to be the best at summarizing all the events that have happened since these allegations against Cain were made, and hit pretty much all the major points that were presented in the other three sources.
The final source I looked at was from The Guardian, another international news source. I would definitely have to say that this article provided the greatest amount of bias out of all the articles, and really attacked Cain and his handling of the whole scandal. It made clear, though not in a direct way, that it was suspicious of Cain’s actual involvement. It hinted that there must’ve been something that happened though not saying exactly what, which is seen through the fact that this whole article is covering and analyzing Cain’s tendency to change his story. The article’s header states “Republican frontrunner changes version of events for second time in 24 hours as criticism grows over his handling of crisis,” illustrating its point right away. This article was definitely the one that was the most different from the other three.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/the-blame-game-on-herman-cain/?ref=politics
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-02/herman-cain-sex-harassment-cases/51051432/1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15566388
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/herman-cain-sexual-harassment-story
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/herman-cain-denies-new-harassment-allegations-accuses-rick-perry-of-fueling-stories/2011/11/02/gIQAYKLogM_story.html
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/02/cain-camp-accuses-perry-campaign-leaking-sexual-harassment-claims/
3. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/politics/cain-allegations/
For this post I picked the issue of Herman Cain’s sexual harassment scandal. All the articles I looked at stated the basics of the story the same: Back when Herman was working/running the restaurant association at least two women got some type of settlement for a currently unknown reason, but they both claim that it was for sexual harassment by Cain. However the article from the Washington Post went less in depth then the other two. While short it remained unbiased for much of the article. It stated the timeline of the events in much the same (if somewhat briefer) way as the CNN article. However towards the end it became clear that Herman was not favored by the authors. In the last paragraph they describe his reply to the media rather negatively, almost showing him to be on the defensive. Several of the descriptions of Cain coupled with the picture used (Cain wiping sweat off his face) show the clearly negative light the article wished to paint him in.
The story from Fox is the worst at hiding its bias. Its evident from the wording in the first few sentences that Fox gives no credit to the allegations. Also this article spends much more time then any of the others on the idea that other Republican candidates started the story. As well much of the article is spent talking about the highly unknown facts and information on the scandal. Like the fact that the woman are all staying anonymous and that no legal documents have been brought forward. A lawer for one of the women is talking about how he is planning on getting the documents from the Restaurant Association. Unlike the CNN article Fox makes this seem like a gambit of the women, something that wont actually happen.
The CNN article goes into the most depth by far. Not only does it go into details about things like the interactions this has caused for people of Cain and Perry’s campaigns. Also the other articles talk about how Cain’s polls have been up despite the scandal. CNN explains that the polls Cain’s people are talking about were taken before the sexual harassment story broke. Adding details like this show how CNN is slightly bias against Cain. However they do include details about how Cain takes pride in the fact that he isn’t running a normal campaign. People have said that this is one of the reasons this story is a big deal for Cain because his people didn’t have a plan to combat it. This shows how Cain is different from the other candidates and shows how CNN isn’t completely bias, just slightly. As CNN went more in depth on the validity of both sides statements I feel they did the better job reporting on this issue.
The issue that I chose to investigate is the “Occupy Wallstreet” movement. My four sources all have a variety of subtopics about the movement, ranging from the types of different people involved to the large amount of violence that has resulted from the conflict.
Obviously these articles all have the same general topic, but they each talk about a group of people or an issue more specifically than any of the other articles did. The Washington Post article was mostly focused on how war veterans joined the protests, which is reflected in the title. The CNN article, titled ‘The Oakland, NYC occupiers see violence, legal action’, talked a lot about the two main locations of the protesting, New York City and Oakland, and all of the violence that has erupted because of it. It talks a lot more about the Oakland protests, though). The China Daily article described, in their opinion, what the main problem was that is angering the protesters. It is we have an economy that is too capitalist, and managers are receiving higher salaries than they sometimes deserve. The Jerusalem Post article is written by a woman who went to Wallstreet to experience it. She Interviewed Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. He mentioned that there were a very small number of derogatory statements such as “Jews control Wallstreet”, or “Jews control the banks” blaming Jewish people for the problems of Wallstreet.
The pictures that are used on the Washington Post and Jerusalem Post articles show protesters on Wallstreet (Washington Post article shows war veterans walking in movement and the Jerusalem Post shows a person with a mask on). These two pictures show the diversity among protesters. In the CNN article, a picture at the top of the article shows a line of police with bulletproof vests, shields, and gas masks on. This picture shows the intensity of the movement, because the police officers are in full protective gear.
I think that CNN did the best job covering the “Occupy Wallstreet” movement (in this case, Oakland), because they had multiple quotes from witnesses or people with an opinion on the movement, they had a picture that accurately represented the movement, and because they had some very good statistics.
Sources:
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-military-veterans-heed-occupy-rallying-cry-marching-on-wall-street-in-uniform/2011/11/03/gIQA0tmghM_story.html
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/us/occupy-demonstrators/index.html?iref=allsearch
China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/business/2011-10/31/content_14005504.htm
Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=242354\
Like many other students, I chose to focus on the Occupy Oakland movement, and the city’s controversial response to it for my analysis of the various news sources.
First up is Fox News. While Fox covered the story from both points of view, it was surprisingly biased towards the mayor who ordered the police to get rid of the protestors. There was just on sentence “Police raided the camp last week and fired tear gas during skirmishes with marchers before Quan allowed protestors to return a day later” (1) on the actions of the police. Unlike all the other articles, it didn’t question whether actually firing the tear gas a such was appropriate, rather it focused on the fact that Quan rooted the protestors out, and allowed them to return a day later, alienating both sides. Additionally, there was barely any quotes or information from the protestors point of view. The last line of the article comments on the negative impact the protest is having on businesses in town, reflecting the conservative message that Fox News is known to bring to the table.
By contrast, the Al Jazeera message was very liberal, and focused a lot on the protestors and their point of view. There was a lengthy section in the middle about police brutality, with some unsubstantiated claims about torture. There is only about a paragraph or two about the police point of view— this shows that the article is biased towards the protestors (2). There were even some vivid accounts of flash-bang grenades being thrown into the crowd, as well as a big picture of the tear gas being actually dispersed.
I also found the Xinhua article favorable to the protestors, but not by much—I think they presented both sides as best they could (3). What I found more surprising was that the article was critical of the US nation government, a topic other articles didn’t even address. Although not directly stated, the news agency found it frustrating and not proper that the US Department of Justice would not release the “number of complaints regarding the excessive use of police force on Occupy protestors” (3).
In my opinion, the BBC article was the most objective (4). For the most part, it just presented the facts and little analysis. I’d say that if I had to classify the article as being biased in one way it would be toward the protestors, as little information is given from that point of view, but since the article is so cut and dry, even if the facts were mostly supportive of one side, it seemed objective. For instance, when explaining why there were protests, the BBC put “corporate greed” in quotes, making it completely clear that this was not necessarily their stance. Overall, I found this article to be the leased biased, and so did the best job covering the story. However, the BBC did not go into as much detail as the other news agencies did, and refrained from predictions or interpretations, making the news less interesting.
(1) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/02/oakland-mayor-under-fire-over-occupy-protests/
(2) http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/10/20111026135124919772.html
(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15568057
(3) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/04/c_131228485.htm
The Occupy Oakland movement has gone from being merely an ancillary part of the “Occupy Wall Street” protests to being a pivotal issue when discussing modern protest in America. I analyzed stories of the most recent bout of Occupy Oakland unrest from MSNBC, KCRA (an Oakland news station), NPR, and Fox News.
The article from MSNBC seemed mostly focused on clarifying that the violence was committed by a very small portion of the overall mostly peaceful group. The headline was “Oakland protests turn violent, 80 arrests” [1]. The article presents any violence on the part of the protesters somewhat vaguely, but illustrates the police presence very vividly with phrases like “busloads of police in riot gear advanced on demonstrators”. The Mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, is quoted with a very confusing sound bite. The article’s main point is clearest in the last two paragraphs. It emphasizes that “a minority of protesters...set up trash-can barricades and wore face masks and other, often older, demonstrators... lectured about the need to keep protests peaceful and not provoke police.” The article closes with the description of a sign on a shattered coffee shop window that said “We’re sorry. This does not represent us.” While this article isn’t sympathetic to the violent protesters, it works to distinguish them from the vast majority of peaceful protesters, to whom the article is sympathetic.
The coverage from KCRA, a local station in Oakland, is much more damning [2]. The title of the article is “‘Occupy Oakland’ Demonstration Turns Violent”. Phil Tagami, a partner in a company that owns seven buildings in the area around Ogawa Plaza (the location of Occupy Oakland’s encampment) is quoted saying “They have proven they can’t manage it.” It doesn’t claim that all Occupy Oakland protesters participated in the violence, but implies that they should give up, because their cause is now too far gone. Tagami’s estimate for the damage to his buildings, as well as the damage citywide, is a large number intended to shock locals into condemnation. At the bottom of the article, there is a picture of a city worker surveying the damage in the morning from the previous night’s riot. This further works to leave locals disheartened with this protest.
NPR’s coverage of the riot is fairly sympathetic [3]. The headline, “Occupy Oakland Strike Turns ‘Chaotic’” is already less biased against the protesters by using the word “chaotic” over the word “violent” used in the other two headlines. The picture at the top of the article is of a protester running from teargas. The only injury the article gives details on is one inflicted on a protester by police, a man who had been “‘shot in the knee with a rubber bullet and gassed.’” It also illustrates that “‘hundreds of teachers, nurses, and city workers took the day off to join in the day of protests. And a diverse array of others including school children took part in a series of demonstrations that began this morning.’” This attempts to bring further sympathy on the protesters as an innocent group of nurses and school children.
Fox News’ coverage is more focused on the negative economic impact on the Port of Oakland, where operations had been shut down by protesters the day before the riot [4]. The article’s title was “‘Occupy’ Protesters Shut Down Port of Oakland.” By characterizing the protesters with words like “complain” and “radical,” the article subtly stands against the protesters. However, it is not nearly as biased as usual coverage from Fox News would lead one to expect. It contains quotes from one of the organizers and a “radical leader” from the ’60’s and ’70’s. It contrasts these with the views of two non-striking regular citizens. One, who works at a small lighting sales company, said she supported the protests, although she didn’t feel the need to strike. The other, an owner of a flower shop, lamented the negative impact that the protest has had on his business. The article describes the incident that brought national attention to Occupy Oakland last week, when a young ex-marine was struck by a tear gas canister fired by police. Angela Davis, a “radical leader prominent in the 1960’s and ’70’s” compared the experience of the young ex-marine to the memory of Oscar Grant. Grant died in Oakland in 2009, when, during a confrontation, a policeman mistakenly drew his gun instead of his Taser, and shot Grant, 22, to death. This poignant image is surprising to hear from Fox News, as it gives far more credence to the protesters’ allegations of police brutality.
While all of these stories had merit, and presented facts to back up their viewpoints, I think the story from MSNBC presented the issue best. It presented both sides of the issue rationally and made it clear that, although there were definitely violent protesters who started the riot, they didn’t represent the majority of Occupy Oakland.
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45123582#.TrNEbc3ndS8
[2] http://www.kcra.com/news/29672673/detail.html
[3] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/03/141970482/occupy-oakland-strike-turns-chaotic
[4] http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/11/03/occupy-protesters-shut-down-port-oakland/
The articles that I chose all concerned the recent Herman Cain scandal. Each article was posted on the same day, November 3rd, so the information the media had at that time was most likely all pretty similar. The first two articles, taken from Fox News and MSNBC, were both very similar in story and raw content, but different in their approaches to the content. The Fox News article is much briefer, basically stating the vague facts and quotes from Cain and those involved, although it is clearly interested in the scandal, as is the status quo of the media (1). This article was less biased than I expected, although it does only offer opinions from Cain and his campaign chief of staff. The second article offers basically the same information as the first article, plus more, and much more embellished. Taken from MSNBC, the title is more captivating in itself, and there is an attention catching picture of Cain speaking while looking upset amidst reporters (2). The title “Cain camp points to Perry for harassment leak” is the most accusatory and satisfying for a reader looking to read on a scandal. The structure of the article is much more like that of one covering a scandal, compared to the first article. It divides the article into smaller sections, each with a different notable title such as “Cain turns to the blame game”, “Cain camp tries to shift blame to Perry”, and “Cain gets testy toward reporters.” This article is clearly more biased against Cain, and trying to somewhat exploit him as worthy of a scandal. The wording in this article is much more connotative and loaded than any of the other articles. It covers instances such as the fact that he didn’t take questions after a speech, and again left through the back door of the hotel, things the other news articles most likely found unnecessary to include, but enhances the scandalous aspect and bias in this article. The quotes in this article were much different from any other. This article includes a quote by Michele Bachmann explaining why she would be a good president, something that at first seems out of place, yet is a good plug for her in the controversial time of another candidate. The third article, taken from the Star Tribune, resembles the third article more than the second. Its structure, involving no pictures or other ways of really stirring up emotion from the article, makes it look simply informative. That is what it is, yet it chooses to open the story with coverage on the alleged women, instead of covering Cain himself (3).
This seems to show a little hidden bias, but for the most part, this article was one of news coverage from different angles, especially Cain and Perry, and not unearthing a scandal. The fourth article, taken from CNN, is the most different in the aspect of the angle it was taken from. The title alone, “Perry: Our campaign didn’t have anything to do with it”, and the large picture of Perry plastered over the article, sets it up from a different angle from the start (4). The story covers Perry’s response to the allegations and mentions Cain (obviously), while the other articles were mostly concerned on Cain’s take, and also through in the allegations towards Perry’s campaign. It was interesting to read Perry’s take on being accused, and to learn that this isn’t “his first rodeo.” Perry also used the opportunity of an interview to push his own campaign, by saying he is going to focus on “getting America back to work.”
Personally, I thought that the MSNBC article did the best job of covering the scandal. I don’t mean in terms of information, because the StarTribune article was clearly frontrunner in that aspect. I think MSNBC did the best job because it was a scandal, and they covered it like a scandal. They used the intriguing headlines and pictures, and details that the other articles didn’t use, but embellished the controversy in this article.
(1) http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/03/cain-campaign-backs-claims-anderson-behind-smear-campaign
(2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45138165/ns/politics-decision_2012/
(3) http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/133122618.html
(4) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/03/perry-our-campaign-didn%E2%80%99t-have-anything-to-do-with-it/
This morning I learned that a 520 day mission was ended, in which a crew of six were placed in a simulated mars mission (1). For over a year they were kept isolated from the world in windowless modules, their only outside contact being through an internet connection with a delay meant to simulate the actual delay experienced in space (1). This experiment was conducted to test the psychological effects of isolation (1).The largest difference between the stories and their presentation was between the Fox News and Xinhuanet. Fox’s title emphasized the fact that the crew member, when calculated out, were being paid only $8 an hour for their journey, based on their 24 hour participation and their end $100,00 paycheck, failing to take into account the lack of expenses (3). Xinhuanet on the other hand completely avoided the issue of payment, neglecting to mention the tidbit that the paycheck of the Chinese crew member was not disclosed to the public (4). The BBC also left out the pay, but were more encompassing of the overall data, citing the length of time estimated before any of the collected data could become useful, also left out of the Chinese source (1) (4). The Sun Times was much less biased, giving notice to the stressful conditions of the mission, but also letting their readers know that the crew were smiling and positive in their preliminary releases (2). They mentioned all of the data I covered previously, without any of the blatant righteous outrage of the Fox news report, nor the overly optimistic report of XinHuanet (2) (3) (4). The Fox news source emphasized and manipulated any negative reports, twisting the words of one crew member stating his wish to see the ocean as indicative of the abuse he suffered in the trial (3). They also overly emphasized the time frame for the use of the information, indicating that this was useless torture, and finally topping it with a heavily biased interpretation of a previously controversial mission of a similar nature (3). The BBC was by far the most informative on the issue, giving many quotes of the participants, diagrams of the living conditions, and the expected usefulness of the mission (1). The overall least biased and most constructive source was the Sun Times, giving all of the available information, and in an unbiased light (2). The difference between the countries were not so much a difference between the US and the outside, but more from where each country stands and its particular news sources, the BBC known for its unbiased information, China for its restriction of any information possibly paining them in a bad light, and Fox news merely fulfilling all of its often fulfilled stereotypes (1) (3) (4).
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15574646
2) http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/8616147-418/international-crew-completes-520-day-mock-mission-to-mars.html
3) http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/04/researchers-finish-grueling-520-day-mock-mission-to-mars/
3) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2011-11/04/c_131230181.htm
Justin,
While I agree with you that the media often publishes irrelevant stories (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/200144/cute-penguin-chicks-hatch.glance), I don’t think that the ones you described as such were completely pointless. It is not fair to accuse an article of being devoid of information when it is only a short news bulletin and not an actual news story. The Fox news story is one paragraph long and is nothing but a quick update on the daily happenings of the Occupy Wall Street movement, not something intended to provide substantial info.
I also agree with you that the MSNBC article is biased towards the Democrats (“'Occupy Wall Street' more popular than Tea Party”? Come on.) However, I do think that the article provides some important information about the composition of the Occupy supporters and is far from worthless. 34% of the protestors surveyed were “Convinced the U.S. government is no better than, say, Al Qaeda”? If one third of the protestors feel this way (assuming this survey is representative), then there should be some serious questions about whether the movement as a whole is legitimate. That very statement is ridiculous; “worse than Al Qaeda” is not something to call the only organization capable of implementing the changes that you want. These statistics make me worry that some people’s actually relevant calls for policy reform will be drowned out by those of the radical fools that are apparently present.
The link to the CNN article led to nothing, so I will assume your analysis was correct.
On the Bachmann article: I could not locate the bias that you claim exists. The author of the article is not calling for blame to be placed on politicians, Bachmann is. The Associated Press is merely quoting her, and thus is neither supporting nor questioning her views. My favorite quote from the article, courtesy of Bachmann and regarding poor people who do not pay taxes: “They need to be invested in the country,” she said. “Even if they can only afford $10, they need to pay something.”
This is stupid.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/10/hypocrisy-and-west http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/21/qaddafi-is-gone-but-other-us-foes-remain/ http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/20111020111520869621.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44971257/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/libyas-moammar-gadhafi-killed-hometown-battle/#.TrNJW7JbX1o I decided to examine the way that the media has handled Moammar Gadhafi’s death. Aljazeera did present the death in a credible and factual way, although it did have an absence of confirmed specifics. Aljazeera did quote Libya’s “de facto” leader on his position of the events and also acknowledged the videos that have emerged. This article also summarized what has been confirmed to have become of the important advisors and family of Gadhafi. The official responses of the US, NATO, the Libyan people, and the United Nations were incorporated into the article. What this article seemed to fail to include was a conflicting outlook on this topic, although I’m certain that that would be difficult to find.
The Economist did not have as many articles on this event as other news sources. One of the articles I read was an evaluation of the insincerity of the Western culture and its part in murdering different tyrants/dictators. This evaluation is very effective, being doubtful of each side being analyzed and questioning why the US supported of the rebels and their method (especially after our government had criticized the way the rebels had ended the civil war). The Economist was actually very thorough in its evaluation, commenting on how his death will effect different countries, such as China and North Korea. Because this article contains the questioning of the rationale of the U.S. government, it definitely has a liberal ring to it. Gadhafi doesn’t seem to be the main focus of this article, instead the effects of his death. Fox News was similar to the Economist in regards to the amount of articles concerning Gadhafi’s death, but the one I read was titled “Qaddafi is Gone but Other U.S. Foes Remain.” This article was motivating Americans to stay alert even though our country has become so skilled at eliminating the tyrannical rulers in our world. It encouraged the American people to be wary of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries. It was a very negative article, that basically stated that once we kill all of our current enemies other countries will most likely become our enemies as well. Also, the website did not have one specific article that served the purpose of announcing Moammar Gadhafi’s passing.
MSNBC used the words of observers to try and retell the an accurate account of Gadhafi’s death and the succeeding responses from the people. It also showed the succeeding responses of the people and how they felt that he should have had a trial. There seems to be much confusion and almost no definite conclusion about his death, though it does emphasize that Gadhafi died. The article also minimized the amount that the U.S. was involved in his death, making certain that the people realize that NATO did leave the bombing campaigns. It is undeniable when reading this article that there is an extremely liberal bias. Fox and MSNBC were both biased, to both end’s of the spectrum. The Economist did not seem too biased, but it also did not seem to present specific details of the circumstances of his death. Aljazeera did have the best arrangement of facts, considering the lack of certainty of events, and did not seem to be biased so, I considered that article to be the most helpful.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home