Conversation 3: Bias

Your enormous reply: What is the story/ event? The event that took place here is Tucker Carlson interviewing Larry Sinclair, a man who claimed to have sex with President Barack Obama, while on crack cocaine in 1999. Carlson, is a known American conservative writer and commentator who hosts a political talk show. Larry Sinclair is a man with a criminal background, being arrested on fraud-related charges multiple times, including under 13 different aliases in Colorado, with 97 other infractions, says

What facts were included in all three stories? 

These three stories all included facts of Larry Sinclair’s criminal history and his lack of reliability when it came to his claims. They even tell us that Sinclair was offered $100,000 if he could pass a polygraph test, which is a modern day lie detector, but failed. The right article tells us of facts and allegations against the Republican party in which the media and Democrats took and ran with, without any evidence of those claims, justifying the fact that Larry Sinclair also had no evidence.

Was there one news source that contained facts the other two did not? Why might that be? 

The left side contained facts about Sinclair’s criminal history which the right did not as their motive was aimed more towards justifying Sinclair’s lack of evidence with allegations against the Conservative party that also lacked evidence.

What did you notice about the language/word choice? 

I noticed that the left side used emotive language to emphasize their view on Carlson’s instigation. They go in depth about his subtle yet prominent examples and acts towards feeding into Larry’s allegations. I also noticed the right side using   Was there leading or subjective language to favor one point of view over another? There was plenty of subjective language showing which side was which and which side favored their own. Things like the left side saying “Everything about Carlson is in bad taste”, implying he had wrongful intentions with this interview. And the right side saying,”Because, by the standards used for the dossier, or Blasey Ford, or Swetnick, every network should have a story on the Sinclair interview right now.” This use of language suggests that since the Republican Party had so many allegations against them which were proven to be false, it is okay for the Democrats to have this one thing against them, even if it is false also.

Can you detect any examples of bias?

Both of these articles were flooded with bias as both sides shamelessly attacked the other, completely wiping morality and truth out of the picture. The right side with their “Tit for Tat” mentality, claiming that Sinclair could possibly be telling the truth off the simple fact that people ran off with accusations made against the republican party. And the left side, attacking Colson and clearly siding with President Obama

Leave a comment

One thought on “Conversation 3: Bias”