With all the political media attention on Obama and
his new Healthcare lately, I thought this cartoon would lighten the mood. Even
a government shutdown didn't solve the problems Obama has taken on with this
reform. He is really stirring up the political pot.
Obviously the person who made this cartoon is opposed to Obamcare. It is
full of political satire. "Side effects included delayed treatment,
elevated taxes, swelled deficits, shortages of doctors, and in some
cases...DEATH." Of course the creator points out the negatives of the
healthcare to support his point of view. Some cartoonist who supported
Obamacare would probably leave these "side effects" out of their
image and reiterate positive "side effects" of Obamacare. This is,
yet, another way for media to be biased.
Do you think images like cartoons have a more powerful effect on viewers? Or do you think online media coverage such as articles and videos do? Are there any other sources or contributors to the source of media and its bias? Which category holds the strongest biased in your opinion?
Interesting article. I read an article about a month ago of a man who was dropped from his insurance, enrolled in the ACA via phone, and required treatment for his (I think it was) lung cancer. So, in some cases, there are some serious side effects to the ACA that may actually result in death. However, political cartoons provide the type of humor we often need to see in this crazy negativity filled world we experience in the news.
ReplyDelete