The event I choose was about the unidentified objects found floating in the air over North America. The 3 articles were from CNN, CNBC, and the New York Post. All 3 articles talked about how the U.S. shoots down already 4 balloons that were found in North America one in Alaska, Montana, and south Carolin, all 3 provide details on how it was shut down and who decided. All 3 articles provide names such as our formal president Biden, Norad, and the Canadian prime minister. They all provide pictures related to the event. The two articles from CNN and the New York post provide the audience with videos of a discussion of what happened which was very detailed. The article from CNN was more detailing and provide the reader with more information, it contains details from what size the balloon was to what was the reaction of the congress. In my opinion, the article from CNN was the most detailed article and formal in the way it was written I would say the wording was more professional, and this article was longer than the other two articles. The CNBC article was all formal but not like the CNN article and wasn’t detailing. The New York post was a very short article but it went straight to the point and provide more pictures and the wording wasn’t as formal. There is an example of bias I found in all 3 articles, which was anchoring the reason I believe this is because the media already assumed all over the internet that the balloons are a spy from china but in both articles, it states that no has given any information about the ballots they are still trying to find out what they are and their purpose of them, so now you have everyone talking about how china is spying on us. We will have to wait and see what their purpose really is
3 thoughts on “Conversation 3: bias”
I agree with your assessment. It appears that the media has already assumed that the balloons are a kind of spy from China without any proof or evidence yet. This shows how quickly the media can jump to conclusions without fully researching and understanding what is happening first. The articles also used certain words and phrases, such as “Chinese spy balloons” to further drive home the idea that these balloons are potentially dangerous. This type of language uses anchoring techniques to influence readers’ opinions and make them think something negative or suspicious about these unidentified objects, even though at this point nothing is known about them.
I agree with you on how media is pushing that narrative since they have no information or whatsoever on it. Medias spreading misinformation or talking with no evidence can only damage the perspective and views of the audience on others. Maybe adding Chinese spy balloons can create drama and talks when there’s nothing to be talked about.
Detail is critical when describing any topic, so it’s great that you noticed that CNN had the most details and facts! It’s funny how quickly people will believe something like china is spying o us because of speculations. The media is the #1 place to find bias. Great post!