Review our Discussion Board instructions so that your replies can shine yet again.
Select three articles on one topic/ event, either from AllSides or from CNN/ Fox News/MSNBC. On All Sides, you will see many news events covered from three different angles, whereas on CNN/Fox/ MSNBC, you will have to search for a topic that is covered by all 3 networks.
Your enormous reply: What is the story/ event? What facts were included in all three stories? Was there one news source that contained facts the other two did not? Why might that be? What did you notice about the language/word choice? Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? Can you detect any examples of bias? Explain.
Replies to classmates: do you agree, disagree, somewhere in between? Other comments on decoding bias?
39 thoughts on “Discussion Board Post 3: Bias”
Before I begin discussing a news topic that is covered by three major news media outlets, I am majoring in communication studies and want to work as a reporter for the New York Post. We live in a world where people can access their news feed from the internet via devices like cell phones and tablets. Furthermore, people can watch the news on television or listen to the radio. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter to name a few play a huge role in how people get informed about current events. But if someone is old fashion, then there’s always a newspaper available to grab. We live in the digital age and things are constantly changing every day. Every news outlet has its own format in what they want to say when producing a story, which is why they don’t have the same opinion about a topic but including facts is always important. It’s all about style in writing a news story.
Back to the topic, the story that I picked was about the Biden administration’s response to Russia and Ukraine. The first article from the Washington Post included some facts such as the White House national security adviser informing U.S. citizens to leave Ukraine. President Biden is likely to chat with Russian President Putin and preparation for an invasion at the ready to mention a few. The second article from Foreign Policy mentions a few facts such as the statements from the White House national security adviser about not being sure what the Russian President’s final decision will be for Ukraine, Russia’s military forces preparedness, and supplied defensive weapons to Ukraine. The third article from the New York Post said a few facts like the State Department urging people to avoid traveling to Ukraine, the French President meeting the Russian President in Moscow, and President Biden sending a message to President Putin about the consequences of taking over Ukraine.
I feel like the Washington Post contained a lot of facts than the other two articles due to the length of the story. I think that the tone of the use of word choice is very stylistic. The topic of the story is the same but the wording is different. However, they used subjective language to get their point across such as “Russia still has the capacity to invade” (Foreign Policy). It is based on feelings and opinions that authors want to express their reads. A bias that was used for these articles is confirmation bias. An example of this is from the Foreign Policy article. “While National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said that current U.S. intelligence did not indicate that Russian President Vladimir Putin had made the decision to invade—as some outlets reported earlier—he echoed public warnings from top administration officials that a further Russian invasion of Ukraine could begin any day now” (Foreign Policy).
The topics that I choose to write about are the reopening of the Key US -Canada bridge. Despite the fact that they were demonstration, it was peaceful one, and people were arrested without incident. The New York Post highlighted the fact that the Ambassador Bridge that links Windsor, Ontario and Detroit was fully opened and business between Canada and US economies were up and running. The BBC News like the New York Post and CNN (Online News) all spoke about the opening of the Ambassador Bridge. The BBC News and CNN unlike the New York Post , gives us a clear insight as to why the truckers were protesting. Some of the truckers were anti vaccine and they were protesting against a mandate that required them to be vaccinated against Covid before crossing the US- Canada border. All three news outlet agreed that the bridge opened after several days of lockdown. I believe of all the news outlet CNN gave us more information. It spoke about how the leader of Ontario plans to drop certain restriction like the province’s vaccine passport requirements on March 1st if it’s Covid-19 hospitalization rate continue to improve.
Hi Mikhail, I did like how you stated that each news outlet gave different information on the same topic but some lack additional details. I do agree that whenever a news outlet includes more in-depth information on a given topic, the better it is as it will help the readers understand more on what’s going on.
Hi Mikhail, I can agree with your response I also noticed how the New York Post was one of the only sources to not clearly outline the reason behind why the truckers were protesting. They did also however agree that after several days of lockdown the bridge was open so yes again I love how you outlined all the key ideas mentioned
Hey Mikhail, I really liked how you presented all of information and explained everything thoroughly. The New York Post was bias in how they were keeping some information about the protest hidden and not really explaining on the reasoning behind the protest.
Hello Mikhail, I thought CNN provided more information compared to BBC and the New York Post. The New York Post also does not paint a clear picture, unlike the other two outlets, as to why people were protesting.
I chose “Biden reaction to Ukraine-Russia crisis” as a topic. Especially because I’m from Poland and what is happening in Ukraine is indescribable.
First, I would like to start with describing the article from the “Center”. The tittle is not harmful or harsh to both sides. The article states that Biden is open to diplomacy, however if Russia moves forward there will be huge sanctions, and it would be a devastating cost of invasion. Moreover, the article says that invasion is still possible, there are more than 150.000 troops and Russian didn’t pull them back. Biden is not threatening Russia or anything and he won’t send American troops there. Biden also spoked to Russia, that they don’t want bloody war. The language in this article is not aggressive or threatening. I would say it is very reasonable.
In my opinion the person who wrote this article used leading language as, the article talks about not wanting to hurt anyone and that the war would be devastating for everyone.
Second, the title of the article from the “right” says that Biden will respond forcefully if Russia attacks Ukraine. It is stated that USA is open to diplomacy and that they won’t send troops as it says in the article from the “center”. However, it also stated that USA will send armor to the Ukraine. What I noticed about this article is that the title, is very aggressive as USA will attack Russia, even though in the article there is nothing more about that. This article is written in subjective language, as the title is very personal and not accurately describes the situation. It was written this way to make people read it as it is sound very serious. “Responds Forcefully” is a serious statement, because nobody wants a war.
Third, the article from the “left” focuses more on the sanctions, gas line and its prices. As well as freedom. The article also is about, sending no troops but buttle armor and providing training. The only thing that wasn’t stated in the other two articles and is stated in this one is the “fake attacks from Ukraine” which may have a great excuse for Russia to attack Ukraine. As well as the article from the “center” it is written in leading language.
Bias I found:
Anchoring Bias: in the tittle of the article from the “right”. It says, “respond forcefully if Russia attack”, and later in the article there is nothing about it. But first after reading the tittle you would judge the article that it would really happen.
Hello Aneta, I do agreed with your response on how the title of the three articles were written. One title can be less aggressive than the other or less threatening than the rest of them. Choosing the right words is truly important as they can have a tremendous impact on how readers interpret the message.
hello Aneta, I do agree with the Bias you found Articles most of the time do use biasness in there articles or article titles to get peoples attention and there judgement before even reading it.
Hello Aneta I agree with how the right article is written in a serious tone. From what you said it feels like the article at times wants to assure the readers that Biden is doing his best to make sure that war does not happen. Yet they also sprinkle in stuff like the fact that Ukraine will be sent armor by the U.S and that if anything happens then they will attack Russia. It makes a bad situation seem even more dire with what they say.
Hi Aneta,
You covered the articles really well by highlighting the major points. I liked how you stated that “the article was written in subjective language” which I’m in agreement with because as you mentioned it was more personal and it did not describe the situation accurately.
hi Aneta
I like how organized and well develop you presented your post. You analyze your thought and you make them simple to understand. I totally agree with your bias of choice.
I agree with everything you stated from the three articles and it was very interesting. When I started reading the all of them it was just really weird about how the new went around talking about the chaos that will not even happen anytime. The new titles were stating about attacks but it didn’t state about fakes new included in it. Overall everything about the event was pretty clear.
According to the AllSides news, the event on COVID 19 is discussed. The background information; COVID 19 vaccines, COVID 19 tests, Omicron variant, vaccine mandates, and natural immunity. The facts discussed from the articles on COVID 19 states that unvaccinated adults are vulnerable to death 97 times more than vaccinated adults. The article ‘900,000 People Have Now Died From COVID In The United States’ is the only article that contains a fact check. The other two articles do not have a fact check because the fact stating that unvaccinated adults are more likely to be contaminated with the virus than the already vaccinated ones is the most significant. This fact could also mean that vaccination is the only way to avoid contacting the COVID 19 virus. The language used to discuss the COVID 19 event and the articles are biased. Non-essential words are used in these articles to make the language used look simpler. The leading and subjective language used to favor one point of view over another is participatory journalism (Rozado 2021). The subjective language indicates that the news is professional and comes from a known source of information. In this COVID 19 event, there are examples of biasness in the fact check favoring the vaccinated adults over the unvaccinated adults. Lack of vaccination could result from no finances by the unvaccinated adults to get the vaccine (Tsai 2020). Still, the journalist favors the vaccinated ones without considering the unvaccinated ones.
hey mahmud, nice topic and i agree with you with the biasness and the favor of one point of view over the other the vaccinated should not be favored over the unvaccinated because even though vaccinated you can still get contaminated with this virus.
Hey MD, I have to begin by saying I love how organized your comments always are to these discussion questions and yes I agree with the idea that the language used to discuss the COVID 19 event as well as the articles were certainly biased
Hello Mahmud from what you have wrote I can see how the articles favor people who are vaccinated and don’t treat both the vaccinated and unvaccinated equally. I can see how they would favor the vaccinated people as if they are tired of people not getting vaccinated due to absurd reasons but those same people talk about wanting things to go back to normal, then I can see how even if it was their job to be neutral it would be difficult for them to be.
Hey MD! I also agree with you and Kadiatou because both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can spread the covid 19 virus, the vaccinated people aren’t superior to the unvaccinated people.
Hey mahmud, You chose a good topic! I think you explained how they were bias very good and you gave all the examples on how they were being bias. I agree that they were very much favoring those who are vaccinated and not unvaccinated rather than keeping their article neutral .
The story chose is “Biden says Russia could invade Ukraine within the next several day”. the articles of the story i chose are from All sides, New York Times and fox news they all seem to give the same information that “Russia is planing to invade Ukraine”. but the article from fox news seems to obtain more information to me. due to its length and the information stated on there. like when is stated that “U.S officials believe that Russia is planning to “stage a fake attack by Ukrainian Military or intelligence forces against Russian sovereign territory or against Russian speaking people to therefore justify their action as part of this fake attack.” which was not mentioned in the other 2 articles. What i noticed about the language word choice is that they are trying to refer Russia as sneaky,and lying,or giving false information. In all 3 Articles it states that Russia said they were going top remove some troops from Ukraine but instead they send some more. the All State article was written in leading language, it was made for people can see it as big situation and it states that outlets tied this Ukraine crisis to Biden handling of the U.S with drawal from Afghanistan.
Example of a bias in these articles is when Biden said he “believes that an Invasion of into Ukraine will happen in the next several days”. I mean he might have some clues ,but no evidence that the invasion is going to happen. or will happen in the next several days.
I would like to add on that when they mention “believes that an Invasion of into Ukraine will happen in the next several days” they are trying to in a way instill fear into the people and cause a panic. People are already in fear and saying something like that makes the situation worse in my opinion. One can argue it is preparing us for the inevitable but can one really be prepared if all hell breaks loose.
Hi Kadiatou
I feel like the Washington Post contained a lot of facts than the other two articles due to the length of the story. I think that the tone of the use of word choice is very stylistic. The topic of the story is the same but the wording is different. However, they used subjective language to get their point across such as “Russia still has the capacity to invade” (Foreign Policy). It is based on feelings and opinions that authors want to express their reads. A bias that was used for this article is confirmation bias
I agree with your bias example of the article’s title. From all three articles did mention all about the russia planning a attack on them. But no mention of evidence about if these facts are true to believe or if they should take it seriously. At the end of the day it was really hard to believe if anything is going to happen at all.
Thats a really interesting bias that you found. No one know what will happen and stating that it will happen in few days its very misleading. And by now, nothing happened yet and hopefully it will stay this way.
According to all three articles Allaaides , CNN, Fox News and MSNBC all sources discussed the idea of Bias. In comparison to the other news sources All sides mentioned that journalism is tied to ethical standards and values which would include truth and accuracy. It also stated that bias wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, but the hidden agenda within media bias often misleads and manipulates us. That idea stood out to me because the other resources didn’t reflect bias in that light. The language and word choice in all sources differed greatly but the delivery of the messages were clear. The sources are comparable in the topic they spoke on . Aside from the bias topic CNN, The BBC news and NY post all spoke about the opening of the Ambassador Bridge. The reason behind why the truckers were protesting was clearly outlined in CNN and BBC in comparison to the New York Post.
The story/event I chose was “Inflation.” From the left point of view, the Fed is setting out to kill inflation and it’s telling people to brace for collateral damage. It mentions if the Fed wants to more aggressively take on inflation, it will likely hurt wages and increase unemployment. From the center point of view, they said inflation has led to collateral damage and how everything from a gallon of gas to a loaf of bread costs more even though wages have gone up. The article mentions how the report will put fire to the feet of Federal Reserve officials who are planning to hike interest rates for the first time in years as early as next month in a scramble to contain inflation. Consumer prices are rising like crazy and all three articles highlighted that by mentioning producer prices and everyday items increasing over time due to inflation. One thing the article from the center had that the two others didn’t was how Biden was able to relate and sympathize with the American people and their pain. He mentions a personal story in his life where “the price at the pump was felt in the kitchen.” The cost of living is so high people are suffering to make ends meet. Groceries and everyday necessities have raised significantly that many families don’t have food to put on the table. This story from the center definitely stood out and word choices and languages were used in a way to connect with the American people. For example, it was as if Biden was having a conversation with the American people reassuring them food prices will drop. He mentioned, “I know food prices are up, and we are working to bring them down.” I definitely feel like there was some attentional bias in the article because it was definitely trying to capture the reader’s attention by giving them a sentimental story about the president so the reader can relate to it.
The story I chose from Allsides is “Biden ‘Convinced’ putin Has Decided to Invade Ukraine”. Each article from the three websites all convey the same idea but in different ways, although they al have some of the same facts. Each article states that Biden is convinced Russia will invade Kiev which is Ukraine;s capitol and that diplomacy is still on the table until Russia actually invades. The nypost article by Steven Nelson and Samuel Chamberlain did have some additional info than the other two such as,” Harris flew to Europe Thursday to attend the three-day conference and is scheduled to give remarks on the crisis in Ukraine on Saturday morning … also due to meet with Ukrainian president”(P 16-17). It also had weirdly put in the fact that when Biden was vice president that Russia had invaded and took part of Ukraine’s territory and took it for themselves. I thought that maybe they want to somehow link the fact that both times Russia decided to invade Ukraine was when Biden was in a seat of power in order to paint Biden in a negative light. The language in the nypost article is sometimes more aggressive and negative deciding to also include quotes that makes an already bad situation worse. I do not think I could find any leading language in the nypost article. I could not detect any forms of biases due to the fact that I don’t know how the authors of the nypost and abcnews article feel about Biden. If I know that the nypost authors feel negatively about Biden then I can understand the reason for the aggressive and negative language being due to the Halo effect or negativity bias.
I really like your thinking about the whole situation. And as you said we can not detect who is writing this article and what is goin on in their heads or what “side are they on”. That is very smart comment that you provided.
Hi Alvin, I agree with your post. I also agree that the language in the nypost article is sometimes more aggressive. That was a good highlight for your post.
Three of the articles I picked up from All sides talked about the recent super bowl event that took place in LA. Basically, the articles talked about how celebrities and people, in general, broke the recent covid 19 rules regardless of the KN95 masks were given out at the Super Bowl to maintain the new norms of the current condition of the country. The right and the left articles talk about the new mask regulation while the center article talked about the main event only. The tone of the right article looks optimistic toward to new beginning and the left article tone was very attacking, provoking, aggressive. In the left article, the author took out the point where he presented how the government action was taken in California where masks were mandated to wear both indoor and outdoor until Tuesday. But in the stadium, the crowd was mostly maskless. It’s a perfect example of ingroup bias because the people who were inside the stadium did not wear the mask but outside the little children who were attending school were forced to wear masks. It seems unfair to the people who were outside of the stadium and basically favors the people who were inside the stadium. In conclusion, Until the covid 19 end, we all should fight together against the virus rather than fighting with each other about the new rules
and regulations and hopefully the COVID-19 will end soon.
These articles are about trusting the media. All three articles had facts about how people in the media become opinionated because of false information or politics. The poynter article explained how there can be a solution to trusting the media by targeting younger people, who are known to be more open minded and less biased. The poynter article also explained how news outlets care more about building their audience than focusing on the ones that trust them. “If news outlets each focus on building trust with those already most likely to trust them — and many already compete for attention, trust, and reader revenue from the same, often already relatively trusting (and privileged) parts of the public — the people most indifferent to or distrusting towards news, who are most difficult to reach and most resistant to such appeals, and frankly often less commercially attractive, are at risk of being left behind or further alienated.”
The other 2 stories seemed to focus more on the political or social spectrums and the poynter focused on blaming the news outlets themselves. The HuffPost just spoke about the different percentages of how much their users trust each media. The daily citizen post talks about George Floyd and how the black community don’t trust police officers. It expresses violence isn’t shown on the news and that’s one reason why it isn’t trusted because of how they like to sugarcoat things or maybe even not bring it up at all. “You don’t see (the violence) on any of the national news,” Barr said. “You don’t see it on the networks, you don’t see it on the other cable stations. And yet you hear about these peaceful demonstrations. So, it’s—it’s a lie. The American people are being told a lie by the media.”
I’m not sure which article is biased but the daily citizens post shows both sides.
“In an op-ed for the Boston Herald, Jonah Goldberg wrote, “My point isn’t that all is great with policing in America. But ‘defund the police’ or ‘abolish the police’ (slogans that got wide traction in the elite media for much of the summer, buoyed by polished academics and activists with ready-made talking points) was always an absurd idea, politically and practically — politically because even the most victimized populations don’t want to get rid of the police, and practically because a police-free modern society is simply unworkable. (Just ask the former denizens of that ‘autonomous zone’ in Seattle.)” As the saying “defund the police” came about, there are still many who disagree with it. This could be because of the lack of light police brutality gets from the media in general. Therefore many of those that disagree are most likely uneducated in the matter.
Generally, these three articles are about a freedom trucker convoy that advocated for lifting of covid 19 vaccine mandates and leaking of the list of individuals who were funding the convoy. These stories are; ” Which communities sent money to support the Canadian trucker protests.”, ” Threats force Ottawa café owner to close the business after name appears in a hacked list of freedom convoy donors” and Canada sanctions 34 crypto Wallets Tied to Trucker ‘freedom convoy’. The facts included in all these three stories are that the freedom convoy was being funded via GiveSendGo, a fundraising site that is said to be Christian. Another fact included in all the stories is that most of the donors for this convoy were Americans and Canadians, Americans Donated around 60% of the total funds. The article states, “It is true that this is a campaign-funded almost entirely by Americans and Canadians.” Here, the article ‘which communities sent money to support the Canadian truck protest’ tries to affirm that most of the donations were made by these two groups.
This article on forcing the Ottawa Café owner to close down contains other facts that the other two does not cover. Various donors whose names appeared in the donors’ list suffered threats. As a result, the owner of Ottawa Café was forced to close down her business. Another point covered in this article is that afterward, the convoy started taking part in things that she never advocated for and therefore ceased donating. The article points out, “ However, Giuliani walked back her support in her interview with Ottawa citizen, saying that the convoy has morphed into something she no longer supports.”.She initially had the full support of this protest since it advocated for the lifting of the mandates. However, when they got involved in what she never supported then she decided to pull away. There are none of the other two articles that have covered this truth.
Looking at the three articles, there is no subject or leading language. The writer does not talk from his perspective but from facts and evidence. There is no use in these articles containing some form of bias by presenting facts that try to lean to a specific outcome. For instance, in the article where the Ottawa café owner is forced to close down, the direct quotes are one-sided, showing how she received threats. Some of these quotes are; “We got a call from the team saying, ‘we are getting phone calls here.” “I said, ‘What is going on and they said, ‘They are threatening to come and get us.’ We said, ‘Lock the door and we will find out what is going on.” These quotes exclusively want to show how they were being threatened. They only give it from their point of view. Secondly, they only use evidence that is trying to convince the audience that indeed they were being threatened.
The story/event I chose is “COVID-19″. All the articles talk about the decreased number of COVID-19 cases, the mask mandate, COVID-19 vaccines, and COVID-tests. The one article that had a fact that the others did not was “Latest CDC Data: Unvaccinated Adults 97 Times More Likely to Die from COVID-19 Than Boosted Adults”, which talked about unvaccinated adults having a death rate of 9.74 per 100,00 population. As well as how the death rate for vaccinated adults with their booster shot was 0.1 to 100,000. I believe this article had that fact to let the public know that although cases are dropping, it does not mean that you should not get vaccinated. What I had noticed about the word/language choice was how the article was using a neutral tone because although they were informing that being unvaccinated has a higher death rate, they were not bashing or criticize those who have not gotten their vaccination and booster. There was not any subjective language because all throughout the article they were clearing up any confusion and misunderstanding on who was considered unvaccinated and showed a chart of all the death rates for unvaccinated, vaccinated with and without booster. The example of bias that I found was the article title and how although it did speak on the death rate of unvaccinated, majority of the article was about the confusion on who was considered unvaccinated.
Hi Kelly! I agree with you that there was no subjective language. The language used in this article was very clear not harsh and was not attacking any of ” sides”. Great statements you made!
Hi Kelly, I agree with everything you said. Great work.
The stories/events I would like to describe are about this topic that I found exciting and covered by many different excellent news media feeds. The story headline is about the President of the United States of America. President Biden’s reaction and response over what’s occurring in Ukraine. Biden “convinced” Putin has decided to attack Ukraine. This article was posted on February 18, 2022.
Firstly, the “Center” article explained many essential facts regarding Biden’s responses.
President Joe Biden said Friday that he is convinced Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to invade Ukraine. Then he went on to mention throughout his speech. “As of this moment, I am convinced he has made the decision. We have reason to believe that,” Biden said at the White House. “We believe that they will target Ukraine’s capital Kyiv.” The President cited U.S. intelligence but provided no details to support his assertion. Biden said diplomacy remains open to prevent war until Putin begins an attack. Secondly, the article that I chose that explains the same topic is the report from the “Right” that carries the same facts about the same issue. In his prepared remarks, Biden called out Russia for pushing “fabricated claims” that a Ukrainian invasion of two Moscow-backed separatist enclaves was imminent rather than military action by the Kremlin. He also ripped Russian state media for making “phony allegations” that Ukraine was carrying out a “genocide” in the country’s east. “We’re. calling out Russia’s plans loudly and repeatedly, not because we want a conflict,” Biden said, “but because we’re doing everything in our power to remove any reason that Russia may give to justify invading Ukraine and prevent them from moving.” The last article from the “Left” also claims facts about the Ukraine and Russia invasion. “On Friday, the leader of Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine called for his supporters to begin a mass evacuation to Russia, claiming Ukraine was readying for an invasion of the region. Ukraine immediately denied the claim. The Biden administration has repeatedly warned Moscow will likely manufacture Ukrainian provocations to justify an invasion of its smaller neighbor”.
In my opinion, all three articles have many interesting facts about the central issue of Biden’s responses to Ukraine President Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine. However, the two articles posted by ABC News (online) published from the “Left” and New York Post (News) dispatched from the “Right” give me more in-depth facts details about the topic than the article published by (defense One).
An example of Bias I detect in these articles is Confirmation Bias. Examples exist in most parts of the pieces, including the headline.
The story from all three sources started with a similar title stating Russia is going to attack/invade Ukraine. From the left article president Joe Biden speaks on the matter of the issue that there are false attacks from Russia to justify an invasion. Now he’s convinced that “he made that decision to invade” as Joe Biden stated. From the center the story goes more deeper into the situation on how the issue is very terrible with people evacuating the areas. Especially with Ukraine denying their own claims against Russian but they have a recorded messages claiming they are going to attack. But it seem like the whole scene was staged and overall seem it’s just empty threat without any proof.From the right Biden explain that if the russian does invade diplomacy is open and only if the invasion does actually then it would be a devastation. In the end of the article Joe biden does sends out a threat to russia but it wasn’t a threat to pull troops on them but more so to understand what would happen it does come to light. The language from the left is more of trying to understand the situation, the language from the center is fake events that not happen and the language from the right is understanding not wanting a war to break and cause a huge problem. There was one news source that wasn’t in the other was talking about the fake attacks on Ukraine. An example of bias I found the article saying Biden ‘convinced’ Russia intends to attack within day without any evidence because there was so much talk about the invading and fake news on top of that which makes it hard to believe if anything is going to happen.
A story that caught me by surprise over the past week was Russia potentially invading Ukraine. This is going to be the story I choose. I chose the article from AllSides and viewed it from the “center perspective”. After reading the center portion, Defense One, and the author used specific word choices that played it “safe” for either side of the argument. First off, the article was about President’s Biden response, albeit short, about Russia possibly invading Ukraine. Biden stated, “diplomacy remains open to prevent war until Putin actually begins an attack”. President Biden played coy as he stated diplomacy stands at the moment, up until Russia makes its move and strikes first. As far as language goes, it follows a passive tone, until one mistake is made. The “right” takes a left turn and talks about how President Biden plans to use his power if Russia does invade Ukraine. The tone can be felt as aggressive. The “left” highlights gas lines and prices as well as the causes and effects of sending troops into the conflict.
The story/event is Russia’s attack on Ukraine and its people. In all three stories, it is evident that Russia’s President Putin has issued an attack on Ukraine. It is also factual that President Joe Biden and a few of the world leaders are weighing on the matter and plans to hold Russia accountable for their actions. Also, we can see that the war/dispute between Ukraine and Russia did not surface overnight, however, it was birth from history. This press posted in its news one video shows what appears to be the tail section of a rocket fired from a Smerch heavy multiple rocket launcher sticking out of the pavement near an Orthodox church in the city—a worrying sign that imprecise weapons are striking civilian areas, whilst, the other news sources had no visual or audio feedback. They also have narratives between the reporter(s) and civilians living in Ukraine. The reason for this could’ve been the fact that a news outlet/source most times only reports on the story they think will grasp the public’s attention, otherwise, only covering the news that is one-sided and related to their personal opinion and views on the matter.
I noticed that the language most of the reporters/ news sources used were Negative emotive language, for example, the report in the news article titled: Too Little, Too Late- from the right, made a negative reference to President Joe Biden’s leadership by asking a rhetorical question in his article “Only today, after his administration declared an invasion was an inevitability, did tough-guy Biden finally let sanctions move forward.” this was the use of negative emotive language because such use of the word was used in a diminishing and negative way. Yes, there were leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over the other. Again, it comes back to when the writer address Biden as the ‘tough guy’ therefore, putting weight on the idea that his point of view that Biden is somewhat responsible for Russia’s actions can outweigh the fact that Russia is responsible for their own actions. There were a few examples of bias that was detected, which include: Halo Effect- From reading the report that DAVID HARSANYI accumulated suggest that he might have already disliked Biden, hence his report depicted how much of an influence his settled feelings have on his report. and Negativity Bias- most of the reporters as suggested have allowed negative events to disproportionately influence their thinking, therefore, starting from the actual truth and fact of stories/ and or events.