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?
50 thoughts on “Discussion Board Post 3: Bias”
What is the story/ event? The story is about how a lot of celebrities and influencers, and people that attended the Superbowl decided to ignore the mask mandate even though Kn95 was being given out for free at the Superbowl event. only a few decided to wear them and follow the proper guidelines but the majority decided to ignore them.
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? Some facts that were included in all three stories is that the Superbowl is the most controversial opinion that is happening at the moment, also how is the new beginning of a pandemic since people were not wearing masks and covid is being treated as a joke in American sports games. A fact that was not included in all three articles is that The Super Bowl has created an opportunity for the city to attract East Coast executives and dealmakers who have been avoiding not traveling out West, thanks to the pandemic. I think not all three articles wanted to really talk about this but more focus on the biggest impact that was people acting like we are still not in a pandemic and not following the guidelines.
What did you notice about the language/word choice? I feel like the language choice was normal. There weren’t any cursive words, for me as the reader it made me interested in wanting to keep reading all three until the end, I feel like the word choice is kind of attractive since there was some sarcasm in it but that made it fun to read.
Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? Can you detect any examples of bias? Explain. I do think there was a subjective language that favored or more like contrasted one point over the other since the whole point of those three articles is to celebrate the Superbowl but more rationally to point out the childish acts of artists and famous people in general for their actions of not wanting to wear a mask. An example of Bias I found was “Declinism Bias” I noticed this because in the third article it states “That a football game could “end” a pandemic may seem absurd — what does it have to do with the spread, with the facts of the disease and the latest variants, or with the rate of vaccine uptake? But cultures never make sense as pure calculations about inputs and outputs.” This is an example of Declinism Bias since it shows how we may think this game could have been a good outcome but in reality, our future can be seen worse than what it is when it comes to the new variants that can come out, just because people don’t want to wear a mask.
I agree with your respond and I like how you answered the last question and was able to clarify what the question was asking. I like how you included quotes to back up your answer.
Hi, Karla,
I love your explanation and agree that the Super Bowl has made it controversial not to wear masks anymore since omicron is still there; everyone should follow the protocol to be safe because it is still risk who are not wearing a mask. You make an obvious concept, and your examples were very nice. It is easy to understand.
I agree with what you say in the last paragraph that these articles were about celebrating the Superbowl but more rationally to point out the childish decisions that most of the famous people that attended this event made.
Hello Karla,
I must agree with your excellent explanation. You helped me more to understand the whole concept of these articles. Besides the description, your examples were even better. I also love your point of view on the choice of words where you mentioned that the words were attractive, and I agree. However, we do have little disagreement on being favored from the point of view.
Good job! I tell ya, I can’t wait to see what the results are, as far as the health of patrons post-game. I guess that would be the tell tale reality as to whether the NFL messed up on this one, or that the pandemic is truly subsiding. The reality is this, in the end, mask mandate or not, it’s at people’s discretion. You don’t want to wear it? Don’t. Want to wear it? Do it! If you’re concerned for your own health, don’t worry about mandates. Just wear the mask. Eventually all mandates will drop. How one proceeds thereafter, is up to the individual.
Hi Karla,
I really enjoyed reading your comment. Your explanation for the questions was spot on in my opinion. You helped me better understand the concept of the articles. The Super Bowl in my opinion had made not only celebrities, influencers, and fans; but people in a general way too comfortable not following the mask mandate. There are people who look up to celebrities and influencers and seeing them not wearing a mask gives off a message that it’s okay not to wear them, but what people fail to realize is that one selfish act can affect somebody else’s life.
What is the story/ event?
The story is about how fans, celebrities and influencers included attended the Superbowl and were not wearing masks while we are still in the middle of a pandemic and mask wearing in crowds is mandatory. There were also a few people that decided to follow protocol and wear masses.
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?
All three stories included the common fact that the Superbowl is the most controversial opinion that is happening right now and also this might cause a rise in the Covid number once again due to the fact that more than half the spectators were not following Covid protocols.
What did you notice about the language/word choice?
I noticed that both the language and word choice was regular and appropriateAnd pretty informative in a way that people that were a dare can read and listen to the speakers and understand the problem that was created at the Super Bowl.
Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? Can you detect any examples of bias? Explain
Hi Tyra. I agree with what you stated on the mask mandate. Everyone at the Superbowl should’ve worn their masks and followed the protocol. This can also encourage people to stop wearing their masks.
I agree that this can influence people to stop wearing a mask in their daily life which could lead to an increase in cases.
Hi, Tyra!
It looks like a lot of us chose the same topic. There were three different focal points between the articles, and the Super Bowl is surely one of the more controversial events of the year. The day after the Super Bowl, there’s always a headline about the event. The potential for a surge in Covid numbers is pretty high after the display of maskless attendees, but I can’t help but feel like if Sofi Stadium really took the mandate seriously, they would’ve policed the crowd vigilantly. Furthermore, if the state of California was worried about such a scare, they would’ve made sure that the Super Bowl was never held in their state. They can’t have their cake and eat it, too. Every person that signed off on allowing the event to move forward did so knowing good and well that there will be a high number of individuals who wouldn’t put a mask on, let alone keep one on. I’m sure the stadium’s dispensing of the mask was more so a contractual obligation than a health consideration. Everyone involved wanted to secure the revenue that the Super Bowl would inevitably generate. In this case, I think any good grace is simply a byproduct of the overbearing capitalism involved.
Hi Tyra, I see how this can be very deceptive and confusing for many people in society. Many people view these famous celebrities as someone to look up to. If they are seen without masks and giving off the vibe that things seem back “normal” this may push people to believe that “if they can, then why can’t I?”.
Hi Tyra,
I have to agree with you. Individuals who decided to participate in the SuperBowl and ignore the mask mandate overall can cause a rise in covid cases. These influencers and celebrities were not only wearing masks but they were not sitting 6 feet apart. Seeing news like this on media also might influence other people to do the same. If a teenager sees their idol not wear a mask what makes you think they’re gonna wear one themselves? Incidents like this can cause a huge spike in cases just the fact that people love to follow what influencers and celebrities are doing.
What is the story/ event?
The story is one about the lack of masks worn at the Super Bowl by celebrities and most attendees.
https://www.allsides.com/story/celebrities-politicians-ignore-super-bowl-mask-mandate
What facts were included in all three stories?
The fact that there were a lot of attendees, celebrities included, who didn’t wear masks at the Super Bowl despite the arena’s mandate was the only consistent fact throughout all three outlets.
Was there one news source that contained facts the other two did not? Why might that be?
I wouldn’t say there were other “facts” presented, but there was definitely additional “information” injected at a specific angle and exacerbated for some reason unbeknownst to me.
What did you notice about the language/word choice?
Much like the previous question, there were specific angles and word choices regarding the topic. I explain this better in the following answer.
Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? Can you detect any examples of bias? Explain.
I’ve noticed that the Left leaning article errs on the side of outrage as they quoted baffled bystanders and individuals off of Social Media. Social. Media. How exactly is that news? They even quoted mayor Eric Garcetti, “I hold my breath during pictures. Zero chance of infection,” conveying that the celebs and other attendees were exercising recklessness by remaining unmasked. The article felt flimsy and sensationalized with a splash of sarcasm.
The Right leaning article errs on the side of liberty, pride, and arrogance. They drew comparisons to the Olympics that took place in China, but continuously referred to the 70,000 maskless fans at the Super Bowl’s venue as “normal.” Additionally, there was a lot of polarizing, triumphant verbiage used in this article, a very “us versus them” undertone in the publication’s communication.
The Center was completely objective. There was disregard for the rules applied or the rule breaking, just information delivered with no particular bias or stance whatsoever. The other two articles felt like they’ve already chosen a side and are trying to convince me that they have the correct outlook on the situation, or that I should somehow feel just as “passionate” as they do, fluff piece or not.
Ultimately, there’s definitely bias involved in both Left and Right positions that I don’t much care for. There’s an alarmist tone for the Left article, that’s geared to upset anyone who is easily excitable, or handcrafted for an individual that frequents confirmation bias. If I were a person that ingested any and all news at all times just to tell myself, “I was right all along,” I’d definitely fall right into the grips of the Left article. The Right’s bias was more technically skewed than the Left’s. It often conflated two different points in order to support its own ideas that no real individual who craves news would even consider, in the first place. There was self righteousness and elitism dripping from every word. The piece felt oppositional, which can easily be misconstrued for patriotism. I found the Right article, in particular, oddly penned. And the Center article breezily ran down bullet points and facts that any individual would want to know about the Super Bowl, but didn’t come from any angle. It was about as safe as a seasoned bartender telling what’s on tap. Nothing extra, just the facts. The Center article was the easiest to digest and the most effective with its wording – I appreciated it.
Hello Joseph,
I just love your point of view on this article. I also agree with your opinion as well. Best of all, I agree about the left corner and the right corner articles were different from each other. One of them was very negative and the other was positive and the center article was right on topic, didn’t give anything positive or negative about wearing masks.
Hi Jayme, I agree with what you said on the right article. It seems like they took the side of the celebrities and other people who didn’t wear masks. The article in the middle didn’t take a side as you stated. It just listed information and people can form their own opinions on it.
Hello Joseph,
I just love your point of view on this article. I also agree with your opinion as well. Best of all, I agree about the left corner and the right corner articles were different from each other. One of them was very negative and the other was positive and the center article was right on topic, didn’t give anything positive or negative about wearing masks.
1) What is the story/event?
The story: Sandy Hook families reach a $73 million settlement with Remington over the school massacre.
What facts were included in all three stories?
Families of the victims filed a lawsuit against Remington Arms, the gun company that manufactured the semiautomatic rifle AR-15 the weapon that was used in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School claiming the lives of twenty-six people, twenty kids, and six adults.
2) Was there one news source that contain facts that the other two did not? Why might that be?
The story was the same on all three sources, however, there was a little inconsistency in some of the information, for example, ABC news on the (left) said nine people including five adults, and four kids were killed in the massacre. While BBC News in the (center) and New York Post on the (right) both said that it was twenty-six people, twenty kids, and six adults, I’m not sure if this was an error since there were nine families who file the suit, they might have mistaken the two or it could be lack of research on their part. In any case, the readers are misinformed and left confused about the facts.
3) What did you notice about the language/word choice?
The language and word choices were really basic and informative, there was nothing amplified in the word choices, and the language was direct it gives a hard illustration of nine families seeking justice for the victims and change so that in the future the gun industries will be more considerate as to how they market guns and will take into consideration public safety and try to help the public in the fight to minimize gun violence. In the past gun manufacturers have managed to bring about immunity and avoid liability, but these families were adamant about holding Remington accountable for those wrongful deaths. they believe that it is of negligence on the manufacturer’s part that such a deadly weapon would get into the hands of civilians therefore the gun-maker must take accountability for the tragedy.
4) Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? can you detect any example of bias? explain.
The story was well executed by all three sources, I think everyone’s point of view was very well respected. The subjective language that I detected is in that statement from the Attorney, Josh Koskoff who said “The suit was just as much about greed as it was guns.” I think this is his personal bias. I don’t have an explanation for that and I am not sure at whom he directed his feelings.
Hello Karla,
I must agree with your excellent explanation. You helped me more to understand the whole concept of these articles. Besides the description, your examples were even better. I also love your point of view on the choice of words where you mentioned that the words were attractive, and I agree. However, we do have little disagreement on being favored from the point of view.
What is the story/ event?
The event is the super bowl, one of the biggest events that take place in America and that is the final of the football game. This is one of the days that almost everyone stays home or any indoor just to watch the game.
What facts were included in all three stories?
All three articles had little different kinds of facts. From the left side, they were giving facts about the people that were not wearing a mask. From the Center, they were giving facts about the super bowl and when was the last time it was played in that stadium. On the right side, they were more focused on positive ideas where they mentioned that everyone is celebrating the end of the pandemic and that we are going to our normal life.
Was there one news source that contained facts the other two did not?
The article from the center had facts about the game and stadium history, and who were there playing any roles. The other articles didn’t mention anything about it. They both were different and one was toward the positive on the ending of pandemic and the other was negative about people and celebrities that were not wearing masks.
Why might that be?
There are many reasons for different information given to the readers. First of all, every news channel gives information based on what their readers would enjoy reading. Based on their readers, they write the article. Everyone wants to cover different information to catch their attention and keep their readers.
What did you notice about the language/word choice?
The words were very easy to read and understand. From the left corner, I feel that they were using dysphemisms and hyperbole because they were being negative about not wearing the mask and they were exaggerating more than it happened. From the Right corner, they were using euphemism because they were being positive about the situation.
Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another?
There were leading and subjective language to favor one point of view over another, in the article, from the left corner, they were being negative about the whole situation because they didn’t wear masks, even though got the mask. They were talking about the mandate and covid rules and regulations. From the right corner, they were positive about it.
Can you detect any examples of bias? Explain.
From the left corner article, they wrote that “In California, there is a statewide mandate for people to wear masks indoors until Tuesday.” They were being biased against people not wearing masks. If you think about it if you don’t need a mask while eating or drinking, wouldn’t it be the same thing as not wearing a mask in general because you are still breathing around other people as well. At the same time, they all went to celebrate Super Bowl, let them celebrate how they wanted. If we wanted them to follow the entire mandate, then six feet distance is supposed to be another one.
Hi Sunjida, I agreed with what you said in your last paragraph, the writer is pointing out about people not wearing masks but not saying anything about people not respecting the six feet mandate. My opinion is that if Covid is still a concern why even letting the super bowl happening in the first place knowing that it will be pack of people? However, I believe that there was at least a proof of covid vaccine or a negative covid test required to attend the game in order to minimize the spread of the virus.
1. The story is on the invasion of Ukraine and the tension between the U.S and Russia
2. All three sources stated that there are around 150,000 Russian troops outside of Ukraine’s border.
3. The first source contained a fact that wasn’t in the other two. The first story (CNN) stated that Russian government-backed hackers have acquired sensitive information on the development and deployment of US weapons by breaching American defense contractors over the last two years.
4. The language in all three articles is very similar. There is constant use of dysphemism as all three sources point towards a negative outcome. For example, a statement by President Joe Biden was used in one of the articles. “Every indication we have is they’re prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine. This goes to show that this article (AP news article) is pushing the notion of war, which is negative.
5. There was subjective language throughout all three articles. The first article (CNN) wanted to evoke the idea that Russia and U.S are on bad terms and the tension between them is rising. This is suggested by saying that Russian hackers acquired sensitive information on the development of US weapons. The second article (AP news) used President Biden’s statement that revealed how confident they are that Russia will attack Ukraine. Moreover, Breitbart News, which is my third article source, used the same quote to solidify the idea that Russia might invade Ukraine.
6. The type of bias I detected was the framing effect. I’m sure many people who read these articles believe that Russia will invade Ukraine, which might not be the case. Some people believe what they see or read, which is a perfect example of the framing effect.
Hi Tarik, I like how you mentioned one of the biases from the chart. This topic is a very big one as of right now besides the pandemic and covid-19. I am unsure what to believe on the exact terms of the notion of war whether Russia will attack Ukraine and how President Biden is pushing his opinion forward creating this situation to be even bigger. It’s a situation that I am unsure what source to believe from, like you said it all depends on whether people will believe what they read or not.
Hey, Tarik!
I agree with you on the framing effect. The way the articles were positioned definitely aim to stratify its readers, and because these are fairly reputable sources, they usually receive the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions. One source in particular quoted Biden to prove how accurate their information is, they also added the tidbit about Russian hackers obtaining U.S. information. The posture of the bits of information would lead you to think that war is imminent – the framing effect. Good stuff.
Hi Tarica,
I agree with you there was some disphemism in the three sources, their intention is to manipulate the minds of readers into believing what they want them to believe. and it’s good that you mentioned the framing effect because what they’re doing is trying to convince readers that there is no ultimate way to solve the situation Between Ukraine and Russia but to start a war with Russia, knowing quite well that most people are likely to believe what they read.
Hi Tarik! I appreciate the way that you articulated your thoughts on the Russia and Ukraine situation. its interesting how the articles explaining that Russia would most likely invade Ukraine were seen as bias but now it is a reality. I really feel bad for the people in in Ukraine and humanity as a whole. War should not be the only option.
What exactly is the story/event?
The story is about how spectators attended the Super Bowl without wearing masks, despite the fact that we are currently in the midst of a pandemic and masks are required in large crowds to reduce the spread of covid. There were also a few individuals who chose to adhere to convention and wear masses.”Meanwhile, SoFi stadium gathered over 70,000 fans for the big game, and the cameras panning the vast crowd showed the spectators to be almost entirely maskless.”
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?
When reading all articles they all mention how it’s a popular topic right now and how covid could be on the rise again since the mandate is not being taken seriously.The fact would be the pictures that was taken of each celebrity and spectator that wasn’t wearing a mask.
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.
The language was regular, since its news articles it was professional.
Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? Can you detect any examples of bias? Explain
The Super Bowl is basically like an American tradition so its gonna be talk about year round but it got more attention since the headline of the articles specifically mention how majority of the crowd was maskless in a global pandemic .Its showing how careless everyone at the super bowl who wasn’t wearing a mask were also because “KN95 masks were given out”
I definitely seen some bias ways between the right and left side.On the right article they appear to have taken the side of the stars and other individuals who did not wear masks. Just off the title alone you can see that they’re kind of encouraging maskless activities “Maskless Super Bowl Marks Our Return to Normalcy”.The article in the center did not take a side it brought the facts and details on the game and gave the readers the opportunity to agree or disagree on the Super Bowl topics.Whereas the left side was all here for the mask mandate.”KN95 masks were given out at the Super Bowl, but few attendees, including celebrities, were seen wearing them. “,”My students all have to wear masks all day tomorrow, inside and outside of their classrooms because we are in LA County. Same place as the Super Bowl. But not a mask in sight here,” one user tweeted.” As of Sunday, California had an average of 30,381 COVID-19 cases a day as the omicron variant begins to subside”
Hi, Tessilyahd. I just wanted to agree on the Super Bowl being such an American tradition everyone seems to let loose on the masks even if we are still in a pandemic. I find it insane because you are right on mentioning the celebrities not wearing masks. It’s very careless because those who had their masks on are still at a high risk because of those who didn’t wear their masks.
I saw similar instances with my article titles and their biases. Two of the articles picked one side or the other, and one provided a lot of information giving readers the opportunity to make their own conclusion. I also see that you mentioned that the language used in your articles was regular, mine was the opposite of yours. One of my articles was as if a high schooler wrote it and the other two had deeper context and a richer vocabulary.
Hi Tessilyahd, i like how you explained your ideas and opinions. I agree that by not wearing mask Covid precautions are shown not to be a priority to many including celebrities and politicians. It seems that some news sources see that not wearing a mask is a positive thing and some others see it as careless
What is the story/ event? The story was about covid-19 vaccines and how it can affect and increase risks in unvaccinated/vaccinated pregnant women, toddlers/children, and other adults.
What facts were included in all three stories? Facts that were included in all three stories was the
risk of death if you aren’t vaccinated, even if you are how, it can affect you if you have covid-19, and if the vaccines can cause any other risks. The biggest one included all three was that researches are doing many studies to provide protection from the virus, and also to provide safety from those receiving the vaccine. Whether it’s in pregnant women where they mentioned in this article (from the left),”Researchers found viral-induced lesions in the placenta blocked maternal and fetal blood flow and oxygen, killing placental tissues and causing “irreparable damage.” The next article (from the center and what I found to be the most shocking tbh) mentioned how vaccines can cause a high risk of HIV infection, “Ad5 is used as a vector in some Covid-19 vaccines…The researchers stressed the need to understand the role Ad5 might play in increasing the risks of HIV in vulnerable populations before developing and deploying vaccines using the vector.” The final article (from the right) mentioned how studies still need to be made for covid-19 vaccines in children/toddlers because the vaccines weren’t effective enough or didn’t pass trials. They mentioned, “Friday, state health department spokesman Tom Hudachko said the postponement won’t affect Utah’s plans… “Despite today’s announcement, we will continue to prepare for the possible authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for children ages 6 months to 5 years. Science and data around safety and effectiveness have always been paramount in approving vaccines, and today’s announcement is consistent with those principles,” he said. All stories included facts from researchers doing studies to test effectiveness on the vaccines and if it can cause drawbacks as well.
Was there one news source that contained facts the other two did not? Why might that be? I feel that all news sources though one or two were short they all included sources from either researchers or health department spokesman etc. They all provided evidence to back up their points and I found that to be interesting because you read another’s point of view.
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. I saw that all sources from the left, from the center, from the right didn’t favor one view from another, they all seemed to back up the points they wanted to make on the vaccines, from reading I didn’t see anything opposing or going against the other side of the coin, it was well respected. I think all their ideas was to show, not to go against anything or anyone.
What is the story/ event?
The story is about Covid 19 booster shot, whether people who will not get the booster vaccine will be considered fully vaccinated or not.
What facts were included in all three stories? some facts that were included in all three stories were that the FDA authorized both the Pfizer and the Moderna boosters for use in all adults. Additionally, the third dose is recommended because it will increase the immune protection against the virus.
Was there one news source that contained facts the other two did not? Why might that be? In “The 360”, it is mentioned that “skeptics say the evidence in so far does not show that vaccinated people who haven’t received a booster shot face a risk of disease or death serious enough to warrant mandating boosters. Some people are concerned that changing the criteria would create confusion, undermine trust and invite conflict at a time when a cohesive national pandemic strategy is critically important”, which was not discussed in the other two sources. This might be because the 360 wanted to talk about the subject a bit more explicitly than the two others or maybe the person who wrote this article does not approve boosters being included in the definition of fully vaccinated.
What did you notice about the language/word choice? Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? I found the language professional, with no bad word that would hurt anybody. Most of the passage were quoted from what policy makers and specialists said and from trusted sources cited in the article. I did not notice any subjective language in all three articles, all of them related opinions of different people.
Can you detect any examples of bias? Explain. from the center article, the writer only displayed the opinion of those who are pro booster, both in the U.S and in Europe which can be considered as a bias because this tends to encourage the readers to think the same without knowing the opposite opinion.
Hi Kadiatou,
I agree with your explanation that a booster dose would increase the immune system to protect us against fighting the virus. Your example and point of view are biased. You nicely quoted from the passage. People should understand and think that taking a booster is not harmful instead, and it would be safe for everybody.
Hi Kadiatou
I agree with your statement “can be considered as a bias because this tends to encourage the readers to think the same without knowing the opposite opinion” this is true for so many articles, but I like how you worded it. I assume the titles were also the same, attracting the attention of those who have the same biases as it feeds their bias.
Like the School of Thought, Biases poster stated they contribute to readers’ confirmation biases.
1. The event is the super bowl; despite giving away wearing masks for free at the Super Bowl event, many celebrities, influencers, and Super Bowl attendees have decided to ignore the mask obligation. Few wear it and follow the proper rules, but most ignore it. One of the events that for the first time since 1993, the event was held in Los Angeles, reviving Hollywood.
2. The fact that included in all three articles is about wearing masks and maskless America. The Super Bowl is the most controversial issue right now, and it is a fresh start for the pandemic because people did not wear masks. From the left side, the article gives facts about the people that KN95 masks have been given out on the Super Bowl, however few attendees, such as celebrities, have been visible sporting them. From the Center, Hollywood came back to life after the pandemic, and Most of the enormous events checked for evidence of vaccination records, but few wore masks when needed. From the right side, The Super Bowl changed into unofficially going back to everyday life, ending the mask for the United States.
3. The article from the center had facts. The Super Bowl has created a possibility for Los Angeles to draw East Coast executives and dealmakers who have been heading off journey out West. The different articles did not point out something approximately it. The other articles were a little different in that one became towards the wonderful at the finishing of the pandemic, and the other became terrible approximately people and celebrities that had been no longer carrying/ wearing about masks.
4. There are numerous reasons for the various information provided to the readers. Every news channel wants to cover a variety of topics in order to keep their viewers’ attention and keep them reading.
5. The words were simple to read and understand, and standard language was used. From the Right corner, they used euphemism because they were being advantageous about the situation. I think they used hyperbole and dysphemisms from the left and center articles because they were pessimistic about not wearing the mask and enhancing more than what occurred.
6. There has been a subjective language that preferred like contrasted one factor over the opposite because the fundamental factor of these three articles is to have a good time the Superbowl artists and celebrities, peoples in trend for his or her movements of now no longer trying to put on a mask. The example is from the right corner article, “the “normal” part was the crowd.” It shows this game could have been a good outcome but in reality for ending pandemic.
7. From the center and the right of the articles, they wrote, “After two years of movie delays and muted award shows, Tinseltown was desperate for a comeback.” “This was the end of the pandemic in the United States — or at least the primary signal that, as a culture, we are ready for the end.” They both were biased against the mask; they were super excited to return to everyday life. In contrast, the left corner article was all here for the mask mandate. “Everyone at SoFi Stadium ages 2 or older were required to wear a mask unless they were actively drinking or eating. In California, there is a statewide mandate for people to wear masks indoors until Tuesday.”
Hi Murshida,
You mentioned that despite the mask free give-aways at the super bowl event, attendees were noncompliant with the mandate. I think the super bowl fans were sending out a crucial message to health officials (CDC) that America needs an endemic right now. People’s lives have been disrupted and been in isolation for two years now, the public was told by the CDC if everyone gets vaccinated they will all get back to their normal lives soon, today people are vaccinated with their third dosage, death and hospitalization rate, as well as infection rate has declined significantly yet people remained alienated. The mask was supposedly a temporary solution so far it looks like it’s the new normal, looks like what the supper bowl fans were demonstrating is if this is the new norm, then we’re not in acceptance, what we need is some normalcy so we can unwind. I just thought I should add this, other wise your analysis was a great read.
Hi Murshida,
I also found it interesting that after the Superbowl, in which as you mentioned the general public was also not wearing masks, parents around California, specifically in LA were angry at the mandates still being enforced by the government for children in public schools. The fact that young kids have to attend classes such as speech while wearing masks, as well as in physical education classes, has been frustrating for parents. The fact that the government essentially turned a blind eye to the lack of mask-wearing during the Superbowl was extremely hypocritical and it felt like a double-standard to parents. Just thought that that was an interesting addition, possibly could have been fuel for a more left-leaning article!
What is the story/event? The story is “Donald Trump takes a firm stance on the covid-19 vaccine”.
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? The fact that was included in all three articles was that Donal Trump has agreed to take the vaccine. One of the article’s main focuses seems to be, to emphasize that president Biden and Donald Trump seem to have a mutual goal which is to get America vaccinated. One fact that was not included in all three news sources was that Donald Trump saw the development of the vaccines as an opportunity to support his historical legacy, this might be because this statement could be problematic to some news sources, maybe because the other writers did not want to include anything that criticized or problematic comments against Trump.
Was there any leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? Can you detect any example of bias? Explain. I believe there were leading languages in one of the sources because one of the sources seems to be more influential than the other, one of the articles seems to be written, made to convince people of taking the vaccine. I did not detect any example of bias.
I chose to write about Trump taking classified material with him after he left office. The articles I used were found on AllSides:
The Guardian – Trump improperly took away classified material, National Archives says
The Hill – Archives confirms Trump records at Mar-a-Lago included classified documents
Washington Examiner – National Archives finds records with classified information at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort
All three stories verified that Trump took boxes containing classified materials with other personal items that Trump had to turn over. All three articles in different forms mentioned The Presidential Records Act but not with the same context. All three stories also quoted David Ferriero of the NationalArchives and Records Administration and referenced Trump and his staff utilized personal devices to conduct official business.
The Hill and Washington Examiner provided richer context, including information about the January 6 U.S. Capitol riot and that Trump ripped up documents while he was in office. The Hill mentioned that some of the ripped documents contained information about the riot. Washington Examiner stated that the U.S. Capitol riot investigation had been affected due to the handling of records. The Guardian did not mention the U.S. Capitol riot.
When referring to the items found in the boxes turned over by Trump, all the reporters mentioned similar things. The Hill quoted a letter from Maloney stating the “boxes contained correspondence and letters from world leaders and press clippings he may have taken notes on, making them records as well.” Washington Examiner referenced the Washington Post stating, “The boxes contained mementos from Trump’s White House days, such as letters from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and former President Barack Obama.” The Guardian stated neither by quote or by reference that “The boxes included White House documents considered presidential records, as well as items including “love letters” from Kim Jong-un of North Korea, a letter left for Trump by his predecessor as president, Barack Obama, and a model of Air Force One with red-white-and-blue livery Trump chose.”
I immediately noticed that The Guardians title was biased towards Trump; “Trump improperly took away classified material, National Archives says,” the use of the word improperly captures the attention of those against Trump. It gives them more evidence to use towards their bias. I also noticed that the content and use of language were that of a high schooler. When I read Washington Examiner and The Hill’s titles did not pick up a bias. Still, upon reading The Hill, the article’s ending included quotes of Trump claiming his innocence, which seems as they are trying to either give readers the chance to form their own opinion or persuade them. Lastly, upon reading the title of Washington Examiner, it seemed as if they just wanted to give information about the situation. As I read the article, my assumptions were correct; they linked many articles within their article for those who wanted to read more.
Hi Amanda,
Your breakdown of the articles was so succinct! I like how you gave specific examples the news resources used for each of the articles. The fact that the Guardian did not reference sources to base their writing on makes them seem more like opinion rather than fact, which does not help their evident bias towards Trump.
I, as well, wrote about the document seizure from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. And I think we had the picked up on the same interpretation of the language used in each article. I definitely peeped the Guardian’s little dig at Trump as they coincidentally added the word “improperly” in it’s headline. I made mention of that in my discussion post as well. GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE, I suppose.
This week New Yorker cartoon is the example of “the in-group Bias”, which is the action of favoring those who are most like us or belong to our groups. The goat is bias by saying that goat cheese is superior which I assume she is comparing her kind to the horse, pig and other types of animals in the back of the picture.
I decided to read an article about the California gun-control bill that has been based on the Texas Heartbeat Act, an anti-abortion, pro-life law. For the most part, the facts about the bill itself that were included in the articles remained similar. On the other hand, there were a lot of added facts, and exaggerated narratives to either ridicule and critique the act, or then laud it. The right-leaning article decided to add the crime statistics in California, specifically in regard to policies such as bail reform, Prop 47, and the defund the police movement. The left- leaning article on the other hand applauded the use of the abortion bill in the ‘exact way that the right was afraid of’ and turned it around in their favor. The center article focused on giving direct quotes and facts, and did not add any other information or opinion into the mix. While the facts regarding the bill itself remained mostly the same, the information that was provided with it made all the difference for the reader, which made the article itself lean right or left. The language used in the right leaning article, for example, used a lot of very negative words to describe the bill, especially in regard to its main proponent, Gov Gavin Newsom. Furthermore, every fact was expressed in a negative way. For example, upon discussing that any private citizen could potentially take action against a manufacturer of assault rifles- rather than talking about lives that could potentially be saved, it focused on the ‘violation’ of Second Amendment rights. This trend was similarly shown in left- leaning articles, where they seemed very satisfied that the bill capitalized off of the abortion act. The language as well as presentation of facts really skews a reader’s perspective about information, which proves that there is bias within the writing. On the other hand, in the center article, I did not end the article having any immediate opinion about the bill- I just had more information about it.
What is the story/ event?
Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva doping scandal.
What facts were included in all three stories?
MSNBC, Fox News and CNN highlighted The Court of Arbitration decision to allow Kamila Valieva to compete the winter Olympics.
Was there one news source that contained facts the other two did not Why might that be?
MSNBC (center) offered expert opinions from several doctors on effective trimetazidine is as a performance enhancing drug; investigating the explanation to why the medication was found in Kamila sample. The article stuck to facts of doping and the history of other athletes being disqualified for using the same drug in the past.
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.
Both CNN and MSNBC articles focused Russia Olympic Committee decision to allow Kamila Valieva to compete, questioning or asking the opinions other figure skating. Each article purposefully stuck to the facts failing emphasize the age of Kamila. Whereas Fox News points out, “Athletes under 16 like Valieva have more rights under anti-doping rules and typically aren’t held responsible for taking banned substances. The focus of any future investigation will home in on her personal team – coaches, doctors, nutritionists, etc.”
I think all three news outlets show belief bias, each article used supporting evidence to support their opinions but left out conflicting evidence that contradict they or the public opinion.
Cartoon: “I maybe bias but, I believe goat cheese is superior”. The message of the cartoon is we all have in-group bias. I think it’s funny the statement if coming from a goat.
Your post was well detailed in examining the three stories about Kamila Valieva’s doping scandal. The inclusion of expert opinions from multiple doctors by MSNBC added to the source’s overall authoritativeness and credibility. It was also prudent to note the specific biases in each article and the likely causes. I also opine that most media companies leave out any info they consider conflicting or against public opinion. Generally, the post was well done and reveals several thoughtful insights into how different sources approach similar stories.
Three EU Leaders Travel to Kyiv to Support Zelenskyy
This article from allsides shares the perspective of all sides from a left right, and center perspective. All articles speaks on the topic of the war on Ukraine with Russia as they continue to bomb the capital Kyiv. President Zelenskyy has asked other European leaders from Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia to support him in this fight by providing more weapons and sanctions to punish Russia. From a center’s point of view, the article was not biased and was not favoring one side over the other. Information and key points regarding the war in Ukraine were presented without an opinion on the matter. Most of the wording choices were neutral and stuck to facts. From the left side perspective, this article provided a lot more insight into the war in Ukraine and shared more quotes, and provided social media coverage. This article was more in favor of supporting Ukraine as they used more sympathetic words and even provided resources on how you could support them. From the right side perspective, they lacked a lot of information in comparison to the other two articles leaving out important details as well as leaving out direct quotes. It didn’t seem like they were being bias or favoring any sides.
The story that I will be speaking about is the gas prices that are happening now. Gas prices are going up because of Russia invading Ukraine. Since Russia is the biggest suppliers of oil it does cause issues with gas prices increasing drastically.
The facts that are all included is from an article Poltifact that speaks about the problems that are going on with the increase of gas prices. According to the article it states “Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, told USA TODAY last week that sanctions put on Russia by the U.S. and European Union severely hindered Russia’s ability to sell crude oil, one of the biggest determiners for gas prices.” This is causing issues for many drivers because not many people would be able to afford gas and usually the cost for the gases not many people are able to pay for a full tank causing issues for many people to drive long distance. The language choices that were chosen was alright. The choices of words that was present was appropriate for the topic. The article shows the percentage and the amount people are paying for gas currently and the prices from before. The leading subjective language to favor one point of view over another is the fact that it actually shows that there is an increase price on gas and it had informed everyone to be aware of this situation that’s been going on. One example that is bias is when it says “Gas prices and inflation have you down?: Here’s how to sell your car to Carvana, Autonation” This included in the article basically to inform others to sell your cars since gas prices are going up. Yet, prices are going up there’s still potential on getting gas from another European country or trying to help others in the community. This is a bad outcome for many people which can cause others to have issues traveling to work, school or even trying to see family.
The story is about a teenage gunman who opened fire at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, leaving three people wounded and ten dead. The man drove more than 200 miles from Conklin, NY, to the crime scene to execute the attack. He was heavily armed and wearing tactical gear. The man stormed into a store in a predominantly Black neighborhood and opened fire in the parking lot and inside the store while streaming the shooting on Twitch, but the video was later removed. He was later arrested and is not in custody, charged with first-degree murder. Multiple sources have offered various dimensions of the incident.
Notably, the facts present in the three sources include the crime being racially driven and the mention of the beloved guard who tried stopping the gunman but was fatally shot. They also mention Governor Hochul’s travel to Buffalo to assist with the shooting response. However, only NBC News links the incident with the replacement theory and notes that the gunman may have been radicalized online by white supremacists. The source likely added this fact to show the root of the mass shooting. It sought to show the influence of white supremacists.
Overall, the language and word choices show bias and are subjective across the sources. The language could tell whether a piece is inclined toward racially motivated violent extremism or white supremacy. The National Review appears biased in stating the gunman had premeditated the crime and had an online manifesto; hence it was a case of racially motivated violent extremism. NBC News is biased toward the incident resulting from white supremacists’ beliefs and even goes ahead to explain the theory behind it. Generally, each source appears to have some form of bias from its standpoint, either siding with racially motivated extremism or influenced by white supremacists.
References
Acevedo, N., Dienst, J., Romero, D., & Burke, M. (2022, May 15). 10 killed, 3 wounded in racist shooting at buffalo supermarket, officials say. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/buffalo-supermarket-mass-shooting-leaves-7-dead-law-enforcement-source-rcna28883.
Evans, Z. (2022, May 14). Ten killed in shooting in buffalo police say was racially motivated. National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ten-killed-in-shooting-in-buffalo-police-say-was-racially-motivated/.
Murdock, S. (2022, May 15). 13 shot, 10 dead in ‘Racially motivated hate crime’ at buffalo supermarket: Sheriff. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bc-us-buffalo-supermarket-shooting_n_6280050be4b04353eb0533fc.
What is the story/ event? The story is about the absence of masks worn by celebrities at one of the biggest sports events taking place in America, which is the Super Bowl. Not only did celebrities not follow the mask mandate but fans and influencers had also decided to ignore the mask mandate even though masks were being handed out for free during the super bowl event.
What facts were included in all three stories? All three articles had mentioned covid in various ways and how some Americans are not following the mask mandate. On the left side, the article states how people are being offered free Kn95 masks during the super bowl, but attendees such as influencers and celebrities are not following the mask mandate; with little to few people wearing masks in general. From the center, the article has stated how Hollywood had resurrected; with big events checking for evidence of covid vaccination, but yet still no masks were seen on people’s faces. On the right side, this article was more or so focused on the positive than the negative and had mentioned celebrating the end of the pandemic.
Was there one news source that contained facts the other two did not? Yes, the article in the center contained facts the other two hadn’t. One of the articles had stated facts about the football field and the two teams who were playing against each other. Also, two out of the three articles focused more on the negative aspects of the pandemic, as one of them mainly focused on the positive/ ending of it.
What did you notice about the language/ word choice? Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? I feel like the language/ word choice was informative and reader friendly. The overall standard language was used for readers to understand and for the writer to get their message across. In one of the articles hyperbole, language was used to exaggerate and overstate to enhance the story over the other 2 articles.
Can you detect any examples of bias? Yes, on the left side it states “ In California, there is a statewide mandate for people to wear masks indoors until Tuesday.” They were because if there was a mandate to wear a mask indoors, then why did celebrities and influencers in the Superbowl had been seen without them. Plus if this were true wouldn’t you have everyone sitting six feet apart indoors and at the Super Bowl