Digital Political Satire In What's Good For The Gander

In the study, each source was ranked based on the political leanings of its audience. As a result, it ranked sources such as Buzzfeed more liberal than average while it ranked sources such as the Rush Limbaugh Show more conservative than average. However, none of the sources earned a perfectly neutral ranking (Wormald). The correlation between news sources and their audience’s political leanings becomes interesting when compared to the type of content each news source produces. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is infamous for his conservative rhetoric, whereas Buzzfeed is known for its lighthearted quizzes and comical representation of liberal politics. This reveals something about our perception of truth: biased sources allow individuals to ‘select’ the truth. When conflicting information is pushed to the side, it becomes nonexistent. Subsequently, the sum of partial truths interpreted by an individual becomes a whole truth in their mind, especially when partial truths are reinforced by mainstream media sources such as Buzzfeed or the Rush Limbaugh Show. This is harmful because, as Lewis implied, the entire truth is lost in this process and mutual understanding becomes harder to

Journalists play an important part in the democratic process. Traditionally, the roles of the news media are to provide a forum for debate, represent opposing perspectives on the day’s issues and hold public officials accountable while serving their constituents. However, in recent decades, media has given way to biased forms of news— partisan media. In Matthew Levendusky’s “How Partisan Media Polarize America,” he explores if these partisan media influences viewers. The book’s second chapter, “What Do Partisan Media Actually Say?” concludes that partisan media promotes a larger agenda separately to Democrats and Republicans, attack the opposing side while denouncing compromise, and usually side with their candidate of choice during

The article begins by explaining the main purpose for the research inquiry. If this recent election has proven anything, it is that there is vast wealth of election coverage. Citizens can now access political information, and news coverage from almost anywhere through a variety of mediums. This increased access has opened a new dimension. Partisan media effects have been researched in the past. However, this article points out that there is a lack of inquiry on the timing of partisan media influence during the election cycle.

Robert J. Samuelson’s factual article, “Picking Sides for the News,” is an essay that describes the different views and opinions on American news by American citizens. Samuelson claims that most Americans see people in the news business as “sloppy, biased, and self-serving.” He states that the news industry is divided by political views; Republican and conservative, and Democratic and liberal. Based on your political standpoint, you may find different news stations more supportive than others. Samuelson shows support to his viewpoint that many news companies “make news rather than just report it.”

Partisan news has recently become under scrutiny for the biasness that they hold. With CNN being exposed for their fake news and their relentlessness to undermine Trumps presidency. Despite this embarrassment, there have been some pros proclaimed by an author in the article, Public Opinion and the Media: Is Partisan Media Exposure Bad for Democracy? Sides believes that partisan news doesn’t create polarize news rather they attract already polarized people (Sides 5). Additionally, Sides states that partisans are the ideal citizens in our democracy (6). With this being said, Sides believes he is onto some correlation between partisan news and participation amongst citizens.

A news programs bias and political party standings can effect what types of propaganda they show of certain candidates. For example, FOX news is a strictly Republican news channel, it supports Republican candidate, meanwhile news channels such as MSNBC and PBS are extremely democratic programs and support Democratic candidates in elections. News programs political bias can affect the way that particular program portrays a candidate for an upcoming election and a candidate’s portrayal can change a voter’s opinion of a candidate and can cause that candidate to lose viewers’ votes. The broadcasting of malicious rumors and gossip in any form by news programs gives a negative conception to a viewer. No viewer wants to vote for a candidate that is portrayed in a way that makes the viewer believe that they are bad for the country. Every viewer needs to take in to consideration the political bias of a news program before changing his or her opinion of a candidate as well as do some research on the candidates of an election themselves.

Using a “common understanding” of what liberal and conservatism means, National Review and the Progressive were chosen to be the standard of conservative and liberal media. Time and Newsweek were considered to be largely more neutral in their coverage. So, by comparing the two neutral magazines to the two partisan magazines the amount of bias could be measured (Adkins). The results found that Time and Newsweek proved to be largely centrist; however, there was a slight bias to the center-left. This finding, however, was not statistically significant and the two publications remain in the “center” range (Adkins). Other studies have shown that there is little evidence to support the notion that the media as a whole is significantly biased in one direction or the other. However, there is evidence that there is a slight liberal bias in television network news (D’Alessio). Despite these findings, 70% of Americans believe that the media as a whole are biased compared to just 55% in 2014. However, earlier findings and studies show that on a large scale there is roughly a balance between conservative and liberal media sources which refutes the idea that as a whole the media are “biased”. Instead, it is more akin to a “tug-of-war” in which each side balances each other out. So this leads to the question as to why a greater number of

During the recent 2016 presidential election, candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton could be seen glorified on the television screens of an MSNBC segment. On the other hand, viewing Fox News reveals a very noticeable conservative bias, favoring ideology from candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and John Kasich. CNN, thought to be the most neutral of the three, is only considered unbiased because it always has “at least one conservative and one liberal pundits” reporting on an issue (Garcia). News media rarely provides information unbiasedly, there seems to be some sort of political leaning to almost every news report. Although biased news allows for more perspectives and grants more information to the audience, the extent to which

In the article “Hype Versus Substance in Network Television Coverage of Presidential Election Campaigns”, authors Julia R. Fox, James R. Angelini, and Christopher Goble analyze political coverage on broadcast news during the final weeks of presidential elections. In the end they found that in the final weeks of campaigns many voters are still undecided. “Voters making up their minds at the end of the campaign tend to be less partisan and more likely to use-and to be influenced by-media messages in making their decision ” (Fox, J., Angelini, J., & Goble, C). This tends to be enough to cause a last minute “swing” in an election. With this being said the authors also found that these broadcast news stations very rarely address the critical

Citizens of the United States vary vastly. The exposure to media, however, is one common thread that connects the majority of the population. We trust popular news outlets to portray information we need or want to know, but do these stations always deliver it the same? CNN and Fox are two dominant forces in today's media driven society, but these two juggernauts often differ in coverage on many current prominent issues.

In United States politics, it is evident that the media helps persuade or dissuade peoples’ perceptions of presidential candidates. Traditionally, the media coheres to a baseline ideology and covers news, politics, and stories based on that platform. For instance, a very liberal news outlet could characterize a story about raising taxes in a very appealing fashion while a very conservative news outlet could cover the same information negatively. This phenomena is also known as framing. Framing is the way in which media and other groups organize and perceive events in daily society. Framing is an important tool that is used to bring people to a common similarity and ideology. Liberal and conservative news stations use framing daily, either

The findings from this article revealed that consistent conservatives distrusted most news media outlet and consistent liberals trusted most news media outlet as well as had a wider range of news outlet. There also was a correlation between how one’s political views influenced what news media outlet one would use. This article was interesting since it showed how political views impact news viewing. As well as what news outlets are considered more on the left or right of the political

After reviewing the State Media Report I discovered some interesting information that I was previously unaware of; specifically, that only 5 percent of U.S. adults rated newspapers as their “most helpful” source in information for the presidential election (2). Though newspapers are dwindling, I still would have thought that adults would turn to newspapers for helpful information. Learning this information, I understand that individuals now deem information from the Internet as “most helpful”.

Impeding on the theoretical self-determination of the field, however, is its continuing reliance in understanding the notion of cultural

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1962) identify over 150 scientific definitions of the concept of culture. Indeed, many authors have tried to define culture and this is why there are so many definitions and that a unique one is hard to find. First of all, Kroeber and Kluckholn (1952) assume that culture is a suite of patterns, implicit and explicit, “of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artefacts” (p.47). Later, Hofstede adds that culture is “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another” (Hofstede, 1991, p.51). This definition is the most widely accepted one amongst practitioners. For Winthrop (1991), culture is the distinctive models of thoughts, actions and values that composed members of a society or a social group. In other words,