This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
This will be your last post for the term!
Labels: media bias
posted by maby-keirstead @ 9:37 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
23 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Kevan
Well, I’d like to start off by saying that you covered your articles very well and the only reason I chose to respond to you is because your topic was different from the ones that came before it. I do overall agree that the Aljazeera article was the most matter of fact and least biased. I believe this stems from one of two places: 1.) The bias was translated out of it (being an international source from a non-English speaking area, I assume it was translated), and any words with biased connotations were pared down or changed to less biased ones, 2.) As an international source, as in one that wasn’t written by Americans seeking profit, it has the benefit of not needing bias to make sales. I personally feel that number two is the correct, but it really could go either way.
The Economist article, which you pointed out was difficult to find as well as lacking information, was, in my opinion more of a tirade against the double standards of Western governments than about Qaddafi. I did like the numerous examples of other incidences of nations (including our own) deposing undeniably bad dictators.
The Fox News article was, to say the least, frustrating. It is exactly that fear mongering attitude that causes the U.S. to enter into conflicts we should leave alone. Why should one of the most powerful nations in the world enter into what amounts to ‘dictator control’ for tiny countries like North Korea. Is it really practical for us to worry that much? Not really, and in my mind there are bigger issues that need to be resolved before even considering insignificant dictators in sub-par nations. What bothers me most of all, is there is a startlingly large portion of the population that buys into what Fox News (and other biased news sources as well) is saying. That results in a significant number of people wanting to wage war against nations that are not worth the cost of even the air fair to get the troops there, let alone pay said troops to kill off the members of a dictator’s regime. What do we then get for all of our work? Another country dependant on our direct support for the next several years while they try to set up a democracy and then indirect or financial support for a few years past that so they don’t relapse into a state of totalitarian control. Its simply not our job.
Honestly, I have nothing to add or subtract from what you said about the MSNBC article. It was very slightly biased, but in such a way as to not be too distracting like the Fox News article.
@ Hannah:
I chose to look at this blog post because it does not include the word "occupy" in any way, shape, or form and I'm feeling rebellious. Onward with the commenting.
In the CNN article, Papandreou is quoted frequently, considerably more than anyone else, or even everyone else put together. However, Papandreou comes across as a desperate man who still thinks he can keep things under control. He champions his achievements, depicts himself as self-sacrificing, says it would be irresponsible to leave, and then says that the opposition does not support any effort in the interest of the country. As quoted, this is well and dandy. But there are notes questioning most of what Papandreou says, with an end product of the readership being inclined to ignore Papandreou and look at the facts of the situation. This article comes out slightly but firmly in the opposition's favor. It is fact-based and unbiased, but the facts cited simply do not lie with Papandreou.
The Fox article is considerably more biased. Like Hannah has mentioned, this article is one big string of diction. It certainly puts a little more spectacle into economics. This article strongly supports the opposition, strongly questions Papandreou's policies, and notes the complete lack of anything resembling a grip on power. This is not surprising, given that Papandreou is a member of the Socialist party, the opposition is conservative, and Fox has a traditional bias that way. When addressing ripples in the rest of the euro zone, Fox is somewhat more neutral, simply outlining the facts such as they were, without commentary. This article is better at addressing the broader picture but I feel is not as good at the small scale.
Unlike Hannah, I do not feel that the Star Tribune is the least biased in presentation. I feel that this article is comparable in bias to the CNN article. Both cite a fair number of facts, and the facts are similar in nature. Backing off on referendum, Papandreou holding on by his fingernails, unknown if he can make it through the vote of no confidence, etc. I in fact favor the CNN article, as that article quotes Papandreou extensively to give us an understanding of what he thinks about Greece's position and where he might try to go next. The Star Tribune has considerably fewer quotes to offer up. I think each paper accomplishes the same effect, with a neutral approach to a situation that seriously lends itself to the opposition.
The Athenian newspaper has much more specific information to offer. It's worth noting that this paper seems to assume that most people will be intimately familiar with conditions in Greece and what in general has been happening with the bailout plan and Papandreou. Given that the primary readership of this paper is Greek, I'm not altogether surprised. This article is extremely sympathetic to Greece, talking about how much they have been humiliated and how little France and Germany understand their suffering. Again, witness Greek readership. This article contains the sole neutral voice on the topic of the referendum, Balancing Papandreou's comments with Angela Merkel of Germany's comments. It's got a predictable bias and is somewhat useless for Americans.
When comparing these pieces, I basically agree with Hannah. Method of presentation is the main method of distinguishing these pieces, and I essentially agree with Hannah on almost all of her points her, so I'll leave this last section at that.
@Rutger
Oh my. Well, as promised, I did go and check out this story and it is quite something. Therefore, since it's the most interesting news item I've seen in a LONG time, I've decided to respond to you. I read the articles you gave and really had nothing else to point out, save for the obnoxiously short length of the Chinese news source. Regardless, I found the story to be very interesting and took the liberty of looking up the articles that covered this story when it first got its kick off back long before we were even enduring APUSH (holy crap!). In particular, a Huffington Post article gave a very detailed view of the attitudes of different crew members going in, likely to check for changes in their attitude toward space travel by the time the experiment was completed (1). Also, another article from NBC gave details about their first "Marswalks", where space suits designed for conditions nothing less than what we know about the Martian landscape, minus the different gravitational effects. This article also gives greater detail about the living quarters of the volunteers (2). To simply top off this statement, I would like to say that I am highly impressed with the coping skills of these astronauts and would like to see what the final data is like when published about their psychological state of being.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/russia-mars-mission_n_598836.html
(2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41581968/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/simulation-crew-takes-first-steps-mock-mars/#.Trx-SUPiG0s
@Vanessa
I think the selection of articles you chose is very interesting and varied. I agree with you that the Fox News article was less biased toward Herman Cain than I would have expected, considering what I have heard and experienced in the past concerning Fox’s conservative bias. However, I do think that the article was biased, but in a slightly different way. I think that, as Fox News is known for its conservative bias and targets a primarily Republican audience (1), they wanted to avoid alienating either Cain supporters or Perry supporters. The article quotes Cain and his advisors and acknowledges than Perry might not have leaked the story, but it does not give any liberal perspectives and certainly doesn’t mention much of anything at all about the women accusing Cain. This is definitely a biased article, but biased toward Republicans in general rather than just Cain and his supporters.
The MSNBC article is much more informative in general than the Fox News one. It gives more details about the women and their lives since the alleged incidents with Herman Cain, so it does try to include both perspectives. However, the ending paragraphs in particular of this article came across as very strongly biased against Cain to me. The writer of the article appears to have selected quotes and descriptions to make Cain sound like a paranoid, guilty lunatic. He is repeatedly described as “testy” and is said to have “raised his voice.” He is shown to repeat himself with the phrase “Excuse me!” and declares “What part of ‘no’ don’t people understand?” While all of these events probably did happen, as framed in the article, they portray Cain as a desperate man who is futilely fighting the media. Cain’s actions are described much more directly than those of the other people in the article, which has the effect of making him sound more desperate and guilty. Although the accusations may be true, this shows a clear bias.
I agree that the Star Tribune article is the most informative and the least biased. It gives around the same amount of attention to all sides of the issue. In fact, I actually disagree with you and think that this article is the most helpful. The MSNBC article does emphasize the scandalous aspects of the situation, and while this may get more attention, I think that the media should be as unbiased as possible so people can get information and then form their own opinions. Obviously this is a scandal, and that should not be ignored, but nor should people get too caught up in gossip to learn the real story. Although none of the articles are completely free of bias, I think that the Star Tribune article comes closest.
I found the CNN article interesting because unlike the other articles, it focused on Rick Perry’s perspective. While the allegations that he or someone in his campaign leaked the sexual harassment stories had been mentioned in all the articles, none of them gave as much attention to Perry’s point of view as this one. While this was an interesting perspective, the article itself did not actually give much information and didn’t portray any other points of view, so I found it to be the least helpful.
Fox News Article: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/03/cain-campaign-backs-claims-anderson-behind-smear-campaign
MSNBC Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45138165/ns/politics-decision_2012/#.Trx_JvKwUco
Star Tribune Article: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/133122618.html?page=2&c=y
CNN Article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/03/perry-our-campaign-didn%E2%80%99t-have-anything-to-do-with-it/
1. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
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.
HEY BRYAN! So I think you are pretty much correct in your analysis on the media coverage of the Occupy Oakland movement. First, I read your Fox News article. You’re correct in saying that the article was not about the appropriateness of the tear gas, but was in fact about the political popularity of Mayor Quam. She is apparently so unpopular that many people have quit their community jobs due to disagreements on political philosophies. It appears that she has alienated everyone , on both sides of the political spectrum. She doesn’t seem to be taking that strong of a stance on the occupation, so I am somewhat unsure as to why this is true. She has stated that she supports the cause of the “99%” but also is trying to maintain the safety of everyone involved. This seems neither particularly partisan nor controversial to me. It wasn’t pro-protesters or against them, there was no real representation of their cause at all. It skirted the issue altogether. You’re right about the quick economic and anti-protester line at the end, but it is literally one line, and the article itself is surprisingly unbiased. Next, the Aljazeera newspaper was relatively liberal. They use rhetoric like “one sided street fight” to represent the events that took place. It is a clear representation of the police as an unjustified and violent institution while the protesters are in the right and deserve to be treated better. There are many quotes that are clearly highlighted by orange boxes that are from the protesters. One example of this is: “They beat him… and then they took him to another room and they put his head in a toilet, put his hands in a toilet and threw him against a wall”. This shows that they are trying to get the specific voices of those involved heard. I would say the article does not represent the views of the police of the government at all, which means it probably is not the best interpretation of the events. Next, the Xinhua news article had a less obvious slant to me. There were a few specific stories of the lives of people that were impacted by the protests. There are even references to Mohandas Ghandi. I would say any comparison between a protest group and Ghandi is relatively positive. They do make reasonable arguments about the other side, saying that the police and the government are simply trying to maintain peace in the community as well as keep as many people safe as possible. While I wouldn’t say the Xinhua article is biased, I also do not think it had the most comprehensive explanation of what happened. It also didn’t give much explanation of the reasoning on either sides. I definitely agree with you that the BBC evidence is the most useful and the most objective. The use of quotation marks allows the reader to “take it with a grain of salt”. The explanations of the protesters’ cause were more thorough than the other sources. There was an increased use of facts and less of a “story” told about the events. There were less unhelpful quotes that just increased confusion and made a clear interpretation of the events impossible.
. (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
@Sam
Sam-
I agree with you that the Washington Post (4) did a good job of avoiding bias, but I believe that CNN (3) did the best job of providing information from various angles. I disagree that MSNBC (1) had the most bias, as I see the Fox News (2) article as having more bias in FAVOR of Cain.
For the most part, these articles are very similar, many using the same quotes from the campaign manager and the original Politico article. I also noticed a trend among the articles, which was that no one source took quotes/information as fact. I think that Fox News actually does the best job of showing this, as the article chooses to focus on the origin of the scandal (Politico). CNN (3) did the best job of avoiding bias, as they went into great detail over how the scandal came about, provided statements about how Cain’s campaign is still successful, and allotted Cain many quotes to express his knowledge of the incident and to defend himself against the accusations. While allowing Cain to defend himself, CNN also mentions that the reason why the women will not come forward due to two reasons: the severance agreement, and the fear that the public may turn on them. It is was a common position among Conservative news sources to point the finger at the accusers, stating that they are “hiding” behind their anonymity, but CNN does an excellent job of explaining why this might be the best move for the women, along with the fact that one woman wants to speak out but is legally restricted. CNN also brings up towards the end the idea that this is viewed by some as media racism, as unsubstantiated claims are dominating the media coverage for Cain. On a topic such as this, I believe that the media sources SHOULD show a respect for all parties involved, and I do not believe that this angle is a source of bias within CNN.
The Washington Post (4) does a decent job of avoiding media bias by limiting inflammatory words. The article, again, shows both accuser perspective and Cain’s perspective nearly equally. The negative things mentioned about Cain are kept brief and rely on facts: Cain did change his statement on his knowledge of events, and Cain did yell at reporters for asking too many questions about the scandal. The Washington Post uses many of the same quotes as CNN, but has a tangent very different to the other sources: the Post suggests that the reason why the media is being so harsh on Cain is because he is refusing to avoid the Washington media (if Cain were to set up more Conservative press session, then he could limit the controversy).
MSNBC (1) introduces further bias, having the worst quotes from Cain like “This is fabrication!” and “Guilty until proven innocent!” The article leans heavily towards the side of the accusers, but it does balance out some of the negative aspects by talking about how Cain is still seeing growing campaign support, and by mentioning that the best anyone can do is guesswork at this point in the scandal. The campaign manager is given a few quotes to show that no one is certain how the rumors started circulating.
Fox News (2) played so safe that it actually became a source of bias. Known well for being Conservative, Fox focuses mainly on HOW the story was leaked, and not the truth behind it or the implications of Cain’s supposed actions. One quote by Anderson references the fact that these rumors are nothing new to politics. The overall tone for the article attempts to persuade the reader to disregard these “wild” accusations, as the accusers will not step forward, and the women that step forward after the fact are probably just jumping on the bandwagon. This article spends the most time on “Did Perry start it? Did Perry not start it?”, which begins to get old after the first few paragraphs. The other articles focused on the controversy, but Fox apparently would rather minimize the issue.
Overall, I found that Fox News had the most bias, as they wrote the article with very intentional favor towards Cain. Additionally, Fox tried to skip over most of the details by focusing on unimportant things such as “who dared to start this rumor?” CNN had the least amount of bias, as they provided many quotes from Cain, but quotes from various other sources as well. CNN also limited biased language and gave space to talk about the implications the women would have to face should they decide to go public.
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
Janny Boy
After reveiw of the msnbc article and the fox article I could not agree with you more, both are written in styles that shed negative light on the issue od obamacare. The fact that fox goes to the extreme by saying our system will automatically have long lines at offices etc. is unfair to say the least. In contrast msnbc presented polling information that says that americans don't beleive obamacar went far enough. The most likely public opinion is some where in the mibble I would like to ask msnbc who conducted the polls and if they were, in fact a simple random sample.
Most likely the chinease article was the least bias because they do not care. I do agree that it was pleasant reading a mild and informative article, but no where near as entertaining as the british article its good to know that a whole country recognizes political suicide when they see it (hehe jk) but really good to know the british are pushing form the left on this one.
Looking forward to serving detention with you and jweb
@justin h
First off good topic occupying wall street can be very interesting! I agree with you that in the first article, “Bachmann says Occupy Wall Street should protest Washington, not businesses” is bias. The article is trying to persuade readers that the government is to be blamed rather than business. In a way this article advocates for a change. Another way this article is showing bias is the article focused on what Bachmann proposes she will do for the country leaving out proposals by other presidential candidates. The second article was fairly short but I do agree with you that the article did not show a bias, the article is made of just straight up facts about what happened rather than opinion. I also agree the information was irrelevant. I do not see what veterans have to do with the movement, why are they even involved? For the third article I agree that it shows bias. I think the stats were shown to persuade the audience that it is popular. For some reason for your fourth article it would not come up on my computer, but I know I would most likely agree with you anyways! Lastly, for your conclusion you are right on! I feel like I did not learn much about the movement just who supports it. I would like to know more why and know more of what is happening.
@ Mcnaughton
First off, I liked the articles you picked cause they are all different in their own way. The Washington Post is just a overview article. Fox News is a who did it article, and CNN is a more detailed version of both the Washington Post and the Fox News article. I agree with you about the Washington Post article with regards to it not being as biased. I think it's hard for a short article to be biased. I disagree with you about the Fox News article. I think it was too early to actually explain the situation, so I wouldn't say that's Fox News' fault for being "biased". I personally think that that was the only information they had at that time, so they couldn't go more in depth. Also, I think that the CNN article was actually trying to go too far in their article. By going too far, they made it seem like Cain was the bad guy. Fox News and CNN needed to cool their jets a little bit, and do more research about the situation before trying to go more in depth. The Washington Post article was the perfect article to put out during this time because it gave people a sense of what was going on without trying to go too far.
@ Abby
I chose to respond to you because I thought that the articles you chose were very informative and quite interesting. I agree with you for the majority of your analysis of the articles, in that the LA Times article was definitely attempting to play down how bad the actual protests were in Oakland, in hopes of keeping the tragedy to be played down a bit. I also agree that this article was written in hopes to help boost its own interests (1). I also agree that the Chinese Xinhua News article was the least helpful because of it only stating facts, but that it was good due to very, very little bias. (2)
I disagree thought in that the Al Jazeera article was a little more biased than it seemed. I believe that while at the beginning of the article when the article says that the cops really weren’t involved, and then says how the police were using tear gas and other ways of deterring the protesters showed more bias against the police than intended (3). I think that the article showed that while the police were not able to do much at the beginning, they went from one extreme (doing nothing) directly to another (tear gas, etc.). (3) Also the Guardian article was the most detailed, as you said, but I also felt that it had almost too much information. The information that was provided was definitely helpful, but the article jumped from point to point, almost like it was trying to make more out of what it was saying by connecting everything together, rather than making one point about what side did what, before moving on to the next point. (4) This, I feel, caused this article to be somewhat more biased against the police, and for the protesters by making all the things that happened to the protesters seem like major overreactions compared to what the protesters were actually doing. (4)
I do agree with you though that the Al Jazeera article was the best, and most relevant article, but also feel that while being very informative, this article also held the most bias against the police in that they went from one extreme to another. (3) I also found your point about how the international articles were more helpful than the domestic aritcle intriguing, yet I completely agree, seeing as the LA article stated very little, while trying to make it sound not as bad as it seemed in the rest of the articles.
1. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-protesters-block-oakland-port-entrance.html
2. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/03/c_131226747.htm
3. http://english.aljazeera.net/video/americas/2011/11/2
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/oakland-port-shut-down-occupy
@Kevin
Well, this is the first time I have agreed with almost every post, and so here goes my first attempt at making an actual intelligent post in which I am merely agreeing with you.
I do not have an informed opinion on the actual subject of Gadhafi’s death, but I can speak intelligently on media bias of the subject. The Aljazeera article was presented in a unbiased manner, presenting the facts as they are known, with as few emotionally charged words as are possible in such a situation. This agrees with your interpretation of the article. Lacking, is your mentioned opposing view point, which although it detracts from the overall usefulness of the article, does in some ways make it more trustworthy, not attempting to twist one view or another, but merely presenting a single view, but in as objective a manner as possible. Agreed with your result, “All in all, very good.”
The Economist article in question does indeed question both sides, however it uses far too many buzz words to be in anyway near an unbiased source. Sentences such as “the despised dictator was cornered like an exhausted fox” do not lead to an objective viewpoint. The continued mocking tone of the first paragraph is attempting to emphasize the hypocrisy evident in the situation, yet it is hard to fully accept their criticism of the killing of Gaghafi and other foreign persons, when in previous articles they so heralded Osama’s death (1). Your perception of a slight liberal leaning is something that I also observe, however I see it as less of a political slant and more of an ideological one. It is biased from the viewpoint that America should not be the police force, or avenging angel of other countries, a view held on both sides of the political spectrum.
In all sincere honesty I find Fox articles too difficult to full read, as I can feel every sentence dragging my IQ down a well, drowning it, then proceeding to empty buckets of waste on top of it. From the parts I can stomach you did the article justice, though I believe your criticism was a little too subtle for the average readers of that source. I specifically appreciate your acknowledgement of the brevity of Fox’s coverage of the problems which Libya now faces, almost assuredly the most important result of the killing at this point.
MSNBC does have a similar slant to the Economist, but more so. It very much emphasizes the American perspective on the issue, and its role in the affair. You covered the main points I would in an analysis of the article, which is ultimately a slight bias, but not so much as to give an unrealistic vision of the event.
Similarly, I agree with your overall analysis. If I had to choose a single article, it would be the one from Aljazeera, however I believe that more research must be done on this particular topic than can be accounted for in a single article. To gain a full understanding of the subject, the differing articles must be read and understood, so the reader can make their own conclusions.
http://www.aljazeera.com/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/#.TryITkOIkXl
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/21/qaddafi-is-gone-but-other-us-foes-remain/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/10/hypocrisy-and-west
(1) http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2011/05/america_and_al-qaeda
@Rutger
I chose to respond to this post because it was something that wasn’t covered by anyone else, and I found this story especially interesting. To start off, I definitely agree that the Fox News article offered the most biased and manipulation of the story (3). When I initially read the articles, I read them in the order that you posted them. The first two articles definitely seemed more as a telling of events, but the Fox News article offered the most to appeal to emotions. Even the title simply sets it apart from the rest. While the other three just stated something about the return of the 520-day mission, the Fox News article is much more loaded: “Researchers Finish Grueling 520-Day Mock Mission to Mars, Earned $8 An Hour.” I was definitely more prepared for an attention grabbing article after reading this title. While the first two articles, the BBC and Sun-Times (2) (3) stories used words that seemed more so informative than anything, the Fox News article’s wording could be much more negatively connoted. It used words such as “trapped” to discuss their living conditions instead of the simple “lived” in the second article, and cited another similar instance in 1999-2000, which I believe was to parallel that both situations didn’t turn out well. Overall, I completely agree that bias was very evident in this article, and lived up to Fox News’ “fulfilled stereotypes”, as you stated. I found the last article, the Chinese article, to be a little frustrating but not at all surprising. It offered hardly any background information, unlike the other articles, especially the first two, and was a little frustrating in its briefness. I also thought it’s frequent (although frequent can hardly be used to describe something showing up in such a short article) mention of China’s involvement portrayed China as having a much bigger and unbalanced role than any of the articles mentioned, and is likely to be true. I agree that the Sun Times article was the most constructive. It was clear and concise, and informative without being strictly facts. Something you didn’t mention that I thought was important was that this article used interesting quotes but in such a way that they weren’t manipulative to cater to a certain angle of the story. All right, maybe you did mention that by saying it was the least biased, but I had already agreed with you on just about everything. Overall, I thought this was a story well worth reading different sources on, and your articles displayed a wide array of projections of it.
(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/
(4) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2011-11/04/c_131230181.htm
@ Jenn
I did the same Herman Cain scandal! I looked at different articles however and I’m interested in the differences the articles had. Like you said though the scandal is/was in the early stages so not much more then generalizations could be made. I completely agree with your analysis of the New York Times article (1). However I having researched this myself I would say that it is interestingly written it is not informative at all. This article reminds me of the two-second sound bites that the media has been giving actual politicians. I mean comparing this scandal to a song, funny yes, accurate, no. Your second source (2) its rather bias against Cain, but I agree with you that it takes a stance against him in a different way then the others. This article seems to make a big deal over Cain’s temper. How he lost it after being questioned about the scandal in a meeting about healthcare, and how his patience’s is “wearing thin”. I would add that the picture that accompanies this article shows Cain in a negative way, it looks like he is yelling at reporters or something. The article does have more sources then the first but some of them are not super creditable. For instance Chris Wilson is only described as a former pollster for the place Cain worked when the scandal may or may not have gone down. Really, Chris Wilson? Well I guess that name does have a ring to it, so I’ll definitely believe him with even thinking about it. However the article does mention many creditable sources like Politico so this article does have merit. Your third article I find very interesting (3). Possibly this is because it is an international article but this one definitely just seems to list the facts way more then other articles. Like you said it simply states the order of events and remains objective in its’ reporting. I believe that this is the case because its mostly going to be read by not people who will be voting for the American President but by people who just want to be informed on issues that are happing world wide. The fourth article is the most bias, and does not really try to even hide this fact from readers (4). I admit I am slightly surprised at this, because it is an international article. I have a guess that more Americans read this news source then the article from the BBC (3). The main problem I have with this article is that it makes a big deal over the fact that Cain originally said that he did not know of any scandal but then after the issue became a big deal he said he remembered an incident. That makes sense to me because first of all this happened like ten years ago, when he was in charge of some sort of business. I don’t find it odd that after ten years, especially when he’s having such a busy year already he would have forgotten the incident. Overall it is a rather persuasive article. It does stick out from the others though simply because it is way more hostile.
1. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/the-blame-game-on-herman-cain/?ref=politics
2. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-02/herman-cain-sex-harassment cases/51051432/1
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15566388
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/herman-cain-sexual-harassment-story
@Vanessa
I agree with the majority of your statements about the four articles. I would like to add that the Fox article and CNN articles are quite similar due to the fact they are both the most biased articles out of the four. For instance, the CNN article is oriented towards Perry’s side of the story and the Fox article shows only Cain’s story [1] [4]. Unlike the Star Tribune and MSNCB articles, Fox and CNN are unable to give the reader objective information and actually give no information about the actual scandal. For instance, neither the CNN nor Fox article states information about the accusers. In contrast, the MSNCB and Star Tribune both mention the accusers’ backgrounds, reasons for staying anonymous, and their allegations. This makes me believe that the MSNCB and Star Tribune are the two best sources of information, even though MSNCB’s article is resembles a gossip magazine with it’s specific and unrelating details of Cain leaving the hotel [2].
Furthermore, I agree that the CNN article is taken from a different angle, but in addition to having a different perspective, it was strongly biased towards Rick Perry and his views on the scandal [4]. For instance, unlike the other articles, there are only quotes taken from one interview with Perry. It is interesting to note that Perry evaded any questions asked directly about if he leaked information about Cain’s alleged sexual harassment. He just discussed his platform with America rather than the actual accusations of the Hermain Cain scandal. In fact, this was the least informative article out of the four by stating only the phrase “sexual harassment charges” rather than actually explaining the who, what, when, where, and how of the the situation.
On the topic of which article was the best, I disagree about your choice. Yes, the MSNBC article displays the Cain scandal as tabloid gossip I personally believe that the best article is the one that is least biased. I believe the Star Tribune article does the best job at maintaining its objective manner. For instance, it is the article that covers the most sides of the controversy. It takes quotes from numerous sources including Perry representatives, teaparty.net, Cain’s campaign chief of staff, and the three accuser’s [3]. Also, it shows two different employee’s opinions of the Cain, one that believes the accusations are false and the other undeniably true. After being showed all of the sides of the Cain scandal, this article’s varied view points allow the reader to create their own stance on the issue.
[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/
@Julie
I decided to respond to Julie because she covered a topic that I find to be quite interesting, and was different from the one that I blogged about. Overall, I think your selection of articles was fairly diverse, and that you did a good job of analyzing them. With that being said, I did feel that there was some important information about the protests that was left out from these articles. Also, it would’ve been nice to read from an international source, since there are a lot of rebellions happening throughout the world it would’ve been interesting to see how the world viewed American’s protests. Anyways, no on to my thoughts regarding your analysis of the Occupy Wall Street movement. I definitely agree with you that the Star Tribune article was biased in favor of the protestors; it definitely portrayed them as the victims as well as showing all the support that they are getting. I feel that this article is the most biased of the four. The protesters have received a ton of support through both letters and donations (money, food, equipment), it’s kind of ridiculous (in a good sort of way though). This article definitely touts all the support for the protesters, not even mentioning any other aspect of the protests in the slightest bit. The only bit of opposition is shown in some of the negative letters, but the tone of the article when describing these is a bit bitter. As far as the Washington Post article, I agree with the fact that it does take the opposite viewpoint of the Tribune’s article. It does depict the protesters as rebellious and a disturbance in society, and tries to make it seem as though the police are only doing what they need to in order to keep order. Also, it tries to hint at the fact that the government is on their side, which I’m not really seeing any truth behind this assessment. I do dissent from your opinion, in that in describing the police’s and government’s actions that they shed a bit of bad light on them, since they seem to be rather aggressive against the protesters who really aren’t doing much. Plus, nothing is being done that is solving the problem, and the protesters have every right to do what they’re doing. As far as the Fox News article, I’m not quite sure how to respond it. It’s definitely taking a different view on the whole movement, talking about how the protesters are debating what to do with the donations. There is relatively little information given in this article, other than the fact that no one really knows what to do and that they’re going to need to figure it out somehow. Plus, the picture that accompanies this article doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what is being said in the article. I found this article to be a bit pointless, and didn’t feel like it had much to offer in the overall coverage of Occupy Wall Street. That is not to say, that what it is talking about isn’t important. I just really don’t have any reaction to this article, but wish it would’ve given something more in any type of direction. Finally, the CNN article which I also think did a good job of reporting the movement as whole. It admitted that many people don’t know what to think of this movement, and what will come out of it. It offered many viewpoints on what is currently happening, and what could come out of it; it did not give any definitive answers though. It analyzed everything in a rather objective way, and did the best job of covering Occupy Wall Street.
Shalom Alison. Let’s get right to it, shall we?
First off, I would like to applaud you on using such an impressive word (“ancillary”) in your analysis—in the first sentence no less! Not only was your post littered with great vocabulary, it also offered interesting insight into the US media coverage of the Occupy Oakland fiasco. For my post I had picked the same issue, but had chosen international news sources; it was enlightening to compare and contrast our findings.
I agree that the article from MSNBC was particularly careful to present the view that, as you put it, “the violence was committed by a very small portion of the overall mostly peaceful group” [1]. In the very first sentence of the article, it is quickly pointed out that “agitators” were responsible for the violence, not the “peaceful” protestors. As I read through the article, I noticed a definitive bias toward the peaceful protestors. I found evidence of this when, the author of the article used some pretty dramatic word choice as he/she described an injured protestor with “blood streaming down his face.” While the article is biased, it does not take away from the validity or usefulness of the source. Like you, I agree that this article covered the news best.
I found the KCRA article particularly biased against the protestors. The article makes barely any differentiation between the violent and peaceful protestors, and focuses on the negative effects the riot had on local business [2]. Alison, I agree with your assessment that the article would “leave locals disheartened with this protest.” While this article admittedly included many facts, it clearly took a certain side, and barely included any perspectives from any actual protestors. For me, this article was the least effective in presenting the issue in an objective light.
I concur with your opinion that the NPR article is”fairly sympathetic” toward the protestors. I found it particularly interesting that for the most part, this article just quoted other news sources, such as the local Tribune, the Associated Press, the San Francisco Chronicle, and KQED [3]. Is a bias still a bias when most of the material is quoted? I think so. NPR chose selectively what to quote, and what they decided to use led to a sympathetic mood. For instance, nothing is included from the police perspective. Although what is presented is accurate, the lack of information from all sides takes away from the effectiveness of the article.
The Fox News article was only slightly biased, which was surprising to me as well. There were negative connotations to some of the word choice, such as “complain,” disrupt,” etc [4]. The end of the article leaves readers with a negative quote from the New York Mayor saying that the protests are ''really hurting small businesses and families.'' Obviously this article has a slant. However, as you point out, Fox did include the story about the accidental death of Oscar Grant in 2009, a definitive attempt to present both perspectives.
In conclusion, I (boringly) agree with all your assessments. The MSNBC article is the best, although not by a long shot. In closing, my only wish is that you had done a less complete job so that I could have had something substantial to critique. Stop being so competent!
[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/
@Vanessa:
I mostly agree with you on these articles. However, I think you give Fox News too much credit. They mentioned the harassment all of twice, and then proceeded to vaguely pitting Perry against Cain. The author seems far more concerned with the suspicion between Perry and Cain than the three women who may have been sexually harassed. For all the author cares, the alleged crime could be littering. I agree with your characterization of the article from MSNBC. It is very biased toward trying to make Cain a caricature and a mockery. Instead of trying to merely explain the status of events, it is trying to feed the flames of the scandal. I felt that the Star Tribune article had more merit than you first considered. While it of course talks about the scandalous elements, it gives far more details on the actual alleged crime than the other articles, and does so in a relatively unbiased manner. The CNN article made me jump a little when I first saw it, out of fear from the creepy close up of Rick Perry’s face. While this article is focused more on how Perry sees the story, I think that’s the point and it doesn’t try to be sneaky about that fact. I’m sure this article is accompanied by several others on CNN portraying viewpoints more like the other articles you found, and this one is meant to serve as a sort of “counterpoint.” I found your last paragraph fascinating and very insightful. You acknowledged (correctly, in my opinion) that the Star Tribune article was journalistically the best of the bunch. But, by judging them on the basis of covering a scandal, you awarded MSNBC the blue ribbon. That is a very interesting way to view these news stories, and incredibly self-aware. You’re right in that this story is a scandal, and news organizations trying to pretend that it isn’t are in denial. So hats off to you for a well written blog post.
@Jan K.
Hello old friend. We meet at last.
I agree with pretty much every point you have. The Fox News article is clearly pandering to the right, specifically the type of uninformed conservatives that watch Fox News, not realizing it’s quite possibly the most biased media source in the 21st century. That’s a serious problem in today’s political climate, and while MSNBC does suffer some bias, generally as a whole liberals are more educated on politics than conservatives, which only excacerbates the Fox News problem. I do find it interesting, however, how MSNBC has shifted left in recent years. While they were always liberal, it wasn’t until recently they started showing commercials that were trying too hard to be trendy and were clearly advocating liberal viewpoints. All of the commercials with Rachel Maddow or Kieth Olberman, showing the anchor at a public place, and attempting to seem very casual. While I certainly agree with the statements made in the commercials, the manufactured spontaneity doesn't sit well with me. While MSNBC isn’t the liberal equivalent of Fox News (they’re not that dumb and crazy...yet) there is reason to believe they keep moving towards it, in an attempt to corner the liberal market the way Fox News has with conservatives.
I also find it interesting that the British article was very left-leaning. Is this because this is an article about heathcare and they have universal healthcare, which is associated with liberalism in the US, or is it because they truly are more liberal than us? I’m not an expert on the Britsh political system, but their conservative party may look moderate to us.
I also found the Chinese article interesting in that it was a neutral as possible, helped by the fact that it simply listed facts, and in no way gave an opinion on anything. This was helped by the facts they chose, ones which also held no bias, and if they did, it was balanced out by facts which showed the opposite bias.
@Andrew Cross
I agree with you that the Greek and South African articles did a mediocre job of describing the issue. The Athens News article talked a lot about George Soros (7th richest man in America, with $22 billion), a man who is suspected of giving money indirectly to Adbusters (the Canadian group that originally organized the Occupy Wall Street protests). The South African article talked mostly about how the protests were being carried out rather than why they were being done. I agree that the South African newspaper seemed unbiased and it was very interesting that they quoted organizers of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) in Oakland wanting to stop the “flow of capital”. As you mentioned in your article, trade with China is something that this very large port city depends on.
Although the China Daily article was pretty short, I thought that it did touch on a very important point: the Port of Oakland handles $39 billion a year in shipping imports and exports. There is some bias in the China Daily article in that it implies that the protest was a failure because the city itself was not shut down. This is bias because it talks about how they failed to shut down the city, when that was not even the protesters main goal. They wanted to shut down the port, and they did.
The Star Tribune article describes Occupy Wall Street activities in multiple locations in the United States, as well as England, where protests occurred. It also explains the reasoning behind each protest, which helps the reader to understand the source of the protest. I agree with you that the Star Tribune article has no bias, but it appears to be just a collection of short reports (from other reporters) from all over the world regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement. It is not a very deep analysis of the actual events.
I very much agree with you that the BBC article is the best out of your 5 sources. I think that it is fairly thorough in the information that is included. There are quotes from protesters and city officials. I think that it brings together what each of the other articles said. The BBC article also showed how the Occupy Wall Street movement impacts the rest of the world. As I would expect, the BBC article shows little or no bias, but what this article does bring out is that this is the first real economic impact of the Occupy Wall Street movement protests in the United States.
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
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home