My POLS class actually touched on this in one of
our recent discussions. It's a very controversial matter that is ongoing. As a
matter of fact, I don't think it will ever cease to exist. The topic I'm
talking about is actually how biased a majority of our news sources have
become.
Some websites were given to me that sparked my
interests. One is left-winged and the other was right-winged. For everyone who
is unfamiliar with these terms, I will explain. Left-sided views are often
considered liberal. Liberal views are sometimes associated with the Democratic
side but not always. Right-sided views are, on the other hand, perceived as
conservative. What is associated with conservative? I mean, there is only one
other side (right?) and that's Republican. Again, conservative doesn't necessarily
mean that one person is full-blown Republican.
Anyways, the liberal site is Media Matters and
the conservative site is Newsbusters. I encourage anyone who is
interested at comparing both sides to look at the plethora of articles on this
website. It's always good to keep an open mind regardless if your one side, the
other, or neither. I'm going to summarize and give an example of each side’s
bias with their own articles.
Media Matters has an article, "Four Fox Lies About Seniors' Obamacare
Coverage". First of all, I would like to point out that FOX is
considered a right-winged network. With that being said, and as you can tell by
the title, the liberal website is about to call out the conservative network,
FOX. They are attacking the right-sided view of Obamacare because they are
biased and don't agree with the conservative view. On the other hand, they
point out lies that FOX falsely claims in this video. From the FOX news
perspective, they are just mentioning certain things that cater to their side,
and it makes the President look bad. FOX doesn't include the whole story, just
particular facts that will form negative opinions on Obamacare. The video is
targeted primarily towards conservative, senior citizens.
On Newsbusters, the right-winged news site is an
article very similar to the one above just switched roles. "NBC set to Launch Week of Programming to 'Help'
ObamaCare 'Succeed'". Newsbusters attacks MSNBC and accuses
them of "regularly touting the liberal line on every issue. MSNBC makes
the comment that Obamacare will, "help Americans get the most out of the
Affordable Health Care Act." The article goes on to mention how the
network fails to mention a wide variety of polls that prove most of society
does not want this healthcare to go into effect, both Republicans and
Democrats. Also, Newbusters happily points out the fact that Democrats
controlled both House and Senate when Obamacare was officially passed.
We receive quite an amount of news every single day, but what percentage
of that news is the whole truth? Obviously not much. Our major news sources are
all considered biased. Fox is conservative, CBS is liberal, CNN bounces back
and forth, and so on. How do we know what to believe? If we don't see both
sides, we'll be blinded by false truths. In order to understand the current
issues, it is critical we look at both sides and all the in-betweens. There
is something to be left out, guaranteed, intentional or not.
My blog is about the the bias in media and I try to find articles to compare their headlines and the language they use in them. I'll tell anyone that I don't have the time to sit down and watch the news, and honestly I don't really care to. I prefer being able to read it. I think watching it on TV can be a waste of time and I just don't like hearing how much attention things like school shootings get and how little attention other situations get. I barely heard about a story where a young teenager was suspended (or maybe even expelled from school) for playing airsoft on his own private property waiting for the school bus. To me, it should bring up the issue of zero tolerance in schools and how idiotic it can be. That is just my thoughts on the matter.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the news I am able to see it right in front of me. I am able to see the language that is being used, and I am able to see how they word the headline. To me these things are important in seeing where the article is going to. I am able to choose which websites I get my information from to try and limit the amount of bias as much as possible. I don't care to see either liberal or conservative viewpoints, I just want the information. If I want bias I will read an opinion article. The other side of trying to figure out if the news is honest is to try and think about it. So often we just mindlessly read the news that we don't even stop and think about it sometimes. I don't like to just believe what I think/hear. I like to form my own opinions. Whether or not they are right or wrong doesn't matter because they are my opinions.
One of my favorite topics throughout the class. Bias in the media is everywhere, and I would have to contend that unbiased news (in the truest sense of the word) does not exist. There are news sources that are less biased than others, as well as news networks that spend considerably more time stripping out bias than others. Some networks elect to leave the bias in place and attempt to balance their reporting by countering one biased article with another biased article from the other "camp." Seeing as how all articles are written by humans, and as humans we all have inherent bias, I personally enjoy the latter approach. It seems to be in keeping with our society in general: present two equally pointed sides of an argument and let the consumer decide what is right for them, or which side makes a more compelling argument.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should build a super-site that has Newsbusters on the right hand column and Media Matters on the left? Then, some complex algorithm to automatically find the corresponding article from the other side whenever you click on any story. At minimum, this fantasy solution would ensure that the reader was exposed to an alternative viewpoint :)
Assuming that nobody is working on said website, I suppose the next best thing would be news sources that present a variety of opinions. They could hire an equal amount of staff from both sides of the aisle (as opposed to networks that have 95% one side and one or two staff with opposing ideologies). That being said, I have yet to see this strategy utilized in a major network and I won't hold my breath.