The event I gathered information on was the disappearance of an F-35 fighter jet in South Carolina, something I personally heard about and was interested in seeing the entire spectrum of opinions. The 3 sources were ABC News (slightly left), BBC News (center), and Byron York (far right). The only piece of information that was shared among all three sources was the topic of discussion, a fighter jet crashing, otherwise every article highlighted a different aspect. The only “fact” that was contained in only one article was Byron York’s highlight of a government rep’s statements on the event, stating “How in the hell do you lose an F-35?” This piece of information was placed to create a bias and clear side/opinion on the situation; not posing a real question or idea, just bashing the entire situation and all responsible. The word choice only slightly varied between ABC and BBC news, staying generally neutral and getting the key facts out, but Byron York pushed an agenda as much as possible, placing a negative outlook and sense of disbelief in the possibility of such an occurrence. The only slight variation between ABC and BBC news was the way ABC highlighted the fact this event was a “mishap” and everything is unclear, while BBC just got the known facts out such as the event, pilot’s safety, and jet’s location once found. Bias was easily identified in the two opinionated articles, and the neutrality was also easy to detect from BBC; ABC News made the situation seem like an accident/uncontrollable incident which could make it more forgivable but stayed generally concealed, while Byron York showed no hesitation and made sure to get a point across: this was unacceptable by any means. In conclusion, when keeping an eye open and knowing that something may or may not be opinionated, it makes it much easier to spot certain things that would otherwise go unseen such as bias.
