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. This should be the same topic, covered from 3 different angles.
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?
3 thoughts on “Conversation 3: Bias”
Bias is incredibly common not only in our societal construct but also in the media. When looking at news outlets it’s important to note that different outlets side with different political beliefs– some may lean towards the right wing and others towards the left. In trying to decipher through news outlets and find a topic which all of them have covered I decided to choose the SOHU, The State of The Union and its rebuttal taking place soon. I believe this was the perfect topic to touch base on because politics come with a lot of bias and pre existing opinions. So let’s start with the MSNBC article first titled, “Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ record makes her an odd choice for SOTU response ” by Steve Benen. Right away you’re informed what side are the writers on… democrats as the starting intro goes as followed
“The GOP could’ve found someone to give a State of the Union response who has a reputation for telling the truth. They went with Sarah Huckabee Sanders instead,” (Benen).
Huckabee had worked under the Trump administration and had even been caught lying under oath, which makes her an odd choice to even be considered to go against President Biden. Again this article goes on to say that the republican party see’s value in creating contracts with the Democratic president, so choosing a female half Biden’s age with experience speaking in support of the republican party and agenda seemed like a no brainer. But this article is basically questioning the integrity of the republican party as they’re putting up a known liar to represent them in something so major.A Washington Post analysis in 2019 described her as “a prolific liar.” A related piece from the time labeled the Republican “the disdainful Queen of Gaslighting.”
Now Fox News with an article titled “State of the Union address 2023: White House releases guest list,” by Chris Pandolfo, that talks about what’s to be expected and who will be in attendance but when trying to look for articles on how Huckabee will be giving a speech I could not find any and personally I can’t help but connect that to the fact that fox has been known to usually side with Republicans, they have a tendency to be more on the right wing spectrum hence it doesn’t come as a surprise that there’s no articles going in depth on her as of yet.
Now on CNN an article “Opinion: Sarah Huckabee Sanders is Trumpism repackaged,” by Julian Zeilzer, it’s important to note CNN is usually siding with democratic beliefs and stand points.The title says it all as the republicans are trying to embody trump and his beliefs but in a way that’s more acceptable to society.
“Sanders represents a new generation of Republicans eager to weaponize the same outrage machine with familiar talking points about the threats of immigration, the so-called radical left’s attacks on education and an economy in shambles under Biden – while showing that they can govern without the self-defeating chaos and tumult that rocked the nation from 2017 to 2021.”
Just like the MSNBC stated they mentioned the age gap and how that’s an important thing to notice and her gender that goes against the president to show a difference in beliefs and approach. They then went on to speak on her upbringing and her relationship with Trump during his running administration.
When looking at the articles from different news outlets I think it’s important to note the evident stance of each outlet and how they’re either very similar or the complete opposite of one another.
Hello Lucia,
I agree that some news organizations might have a particular political agenda or bias, which might affect how they cover certain topics or events. For the article, I chose I was trying to look for subjective language, but I personally didn’t find any unless the bias would be the conviction that was given to the offender/criminal. But I liked your political topic since it was easy to follow even though I’m not caught to date with the news events.
The event in all three of these articles is the shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. In all three articles, the facts are the same which involved Payton Gendron a white 19-year-old male who Committed a hate crime in Buffalo last May that resulted in the deaths of 10 Black persons and pleaded guilty to 25 charges, including murder and domestic terrorism. After expressing regret to the relatives of the victims of the mass shooting in Buffalo at a market store, the criminal Payton Gendron was given a life sentence in jail. He plead guilty and was sentenced to spend the rest of his life serving his term in a prison. It’s critical that those responsible for such crimes are made to answer for their acts since mass shootings are tragic occurrences that have a significant impact on the families and communities involved. There is a difference in how the articles are structured because Fox news adds previous criminal records like ‘felony weapon charge’ while MSNBC and CNN do not. Although the CNN article mostly focuses on the exact words that were said in the courtroom by the attendants. The MSNBC article just gives a quick brief summary of what happened. The difference between all 3 articles is the caption/title of the article. The CNN article called “Buffalo grocery store mass shooter apologizes for racist attack and receives sentence of life in prison” by Mark Morales. This talks about how the shooter is apologetic to his crimes. The Fox News articled called, “ Buffalo mass shooter Payton Gendron sentenced to life in prison, telling families ‘I did a terrible thing’” by Greg Norman. This article talks about the actual words the shooter said. Lastly, MSNBC article called. “Buffalo shooter sentenced to life in prison for racist attack” by Ja’han Jones. This article specified that this was a hate crime mentioning ‘racist attack’ which is a very different word choice compared to the others. In all three articles, t here is no leading or subjective language being used because they are relaying the events that happened in court and the tragic outcome that happened while telling all the accurate facts without favoring over another.