Summary
Media can make or break you. Out of the three articles I read about Biden's visit to East Palestine, OH, only one of them described the event in a neutral tone. The left-leaning article attempts to paint Biden in a better light by overemphasizing his trivial contributions, while the right-leaning article completely disregards the facts of the president's visit and shifts the topic to politics. Although the accusations in the right-leaning article seem plausible, politics should be forbidden in articles because the audience only wants to know the facts. The ''center'' article was the only article that had a neutral tone and was focused on the facts.
The main theme shared between the three articles was about President Joe Biden's visit to assess East Palestine, OH post-year chemical spill. Unfortunately, that's where the similarities stop. The right-leaning article ''One year on, Biden’s ‘consoler in chief’ reputation tested by East Palestine'' shifted the topic to politics by focusing on the failures of the president and the opinions of his critics. One would conclude the president is incompetent because he has failed in his role as ''consoler in chief'' and that Biden's ulterior motive to visiting East Palestine was to garner votes for the election. The article explains the disparity of the actions of the incumbent and his predecessor; Biden failed to visit East, Palestine immediately after the spill. Conversely, Trump visited the site of the spill almost immediately. The reader would perceive Biden as uncaring and Trump as a compassionate person from this comparison. I believe the intent of the right-leaning article to focus on Biden's failures is to reinforce the confirmation bias that Biden is ''sleepy Joe'' and unworthy to hold the title of President. The left-leaning article does a slightly better job at remaining on topic, but it’s obvious it has an agenda.
‘‘Biden praises ‘Herculean efforts’ to rebuild at the site of last February’s Ohio train derailment’’ is a left-leaning article that’s biased towards President Biden. This article demonstrates its bias with subjective language like ‘’herculean efforts’’ in its title. Moreover, it spins a positive light on President Biden’s delayed visit by quoting the optimistic moments of Biden’s speech. Biden’s promise that ‘‘we’re not going home, no matter what, until this job is done…’’ assures the audience that the victims are in good hands, and Biden hinted that he would hold those accountable when he said ‘‘let me say it again, an act of greed that was 100% preventable.’’ This is a framing effect to influence the audience that East Palestine is Biden’s priority, despite his year-long delay that says otherwise. The article by The Hill was the only article that had neutral language that showed both sides of the story.
Readers must become conscious of the media they consume. Media sways the opinion of readers by adding or emitting information. As a result, readers can reinforce their preconceived biases or develop new ones. Readers must carefully select the media they consume because it can make or break you.
