Essay

Those who work in the media are so afraid to tell the truth and decide to keep quiet instead because of what others might think of them. John Stossel, on the other hand, decided to speak nothing but the truth when he announced that he was a libertarian with strong beliefs and began his own show. Bernie Goldberg was another person who admitted to the media being biased and has said that because of the truth, he has lost many of his former “friends”. Everyday people sit down in front of their TV to watch the news expecting to hear what one wants to hear. People watch news sources that have the same mindset as them and know it, but will continue to do so because of wanting to stick to their own beliefs. Sometimes it can be difficult to spot bias in the media for some because of how believable and inaccurate the media can be. Nevertheless, there is definitely bias in the media and the six powerhouses have their own beliefs and will only give out information they believe is

People automatically assume that a news organization’s bias is strictly a bad thing, while this does seem like a bad thing, the bias is negated by the sheer quantity of news sites that you can easily visit, this may take some additional time, but it doesn’t have to take a long time, while you’re stuck in traffic you can just pull out your smartphone and look at some news sites. If you find that one site has too much of a bias that doesn’t mean that you should just ignore that site completely, instead you should look for the same news story on a different site that has a different perspective, instead of just looking at the media from one point of view, look at both the left and right point of view. This bias allows for a look into how both sides see an argument, while one side may see something as a good thing, another side may see it as a bad thing. This allows you to get into the mind of the news stations and their reporters. While you're watching the news always maintain a level of skepticism about what the news station is saying. Skepticism is key to watching the news in any environment, without any level of skepticism you quickly become a mindless zombies that just believe something because it was said on Fox NEWS or MSNBC. You should take into account all the things said by the different news stations in order to formulate

Speed, immediacy, global reach- the Internet provides vast, new opportunities for the distribution and reception of news. I had spent the past two weeks, Feb. 13- Feb. 28, observing the front-pages of CNN and Fox News online. Because both are powerful news networks, I focused my attention on the top-featured stories displayed on both web pages, and if stories were featured on both, did the news networks portray the stories similarly or differently. A lot of my attention was also focused on the diversity of both CNN and Fox News. I reviewed diversity by analyzing the difference in headlines, content throughout the story and the writers and reporters.

To tackle the housing affordability, first of all, it is crucial to lift the supply of housing as it will release the pressure on the housing price. Nevertheless, the supply of housing is inelastic as it requires an adequate fund, time, approval from the Government. Besides, the housing system is heavily dependent on the private sector. Thus, the Government should provide initiatives for housing providers to shift the supply of houses in the market. Australia would follow the policies from other countries to tackle the housing affordability. However, it has to fit in the Australian context. These policies might work well in other places but it does not mean that it will be applicable in Australia. The Singapore Government has a public

The PBS anchor was one woman with little to no makeup on, and dressed more conservative, while on the fox news there were two anchors, a man and a woman dressed more professional with a suit and the woman wearing a little more revealing dress. When delivering the news, PBS has their stories last approximately ten minutes and for this specific day, they focused more about France and their presidential election while the fox news touched the surface on France but talked about a shooting that occurred over there. The fox news lacked detailed stories because jumped to recent events rather quickly. For example, Fox talked about wall street, the weather, France, tragic events and deaths, for less than 10 minutes each, making it hard to understand the importance of each event. While the anchors from Fox would communicate with a third person located in another area to give their reports, the PBS anchor gives a more intimate connection with her reports, by showing the events that are occurring then talking about them right after, she would also give interviews with people one on one, like she did with the united nation security general. The news being distributed in different ways, the Fox news hold a more emotional appeal to their viewers because the audience who watch fox news are from around the area and are familiar with the events that occur. The Fox news give the stories and weather updates that the local viewers need to know because it has a relevant purpose to their lives, compared to the PBS news, that gives educational but irrelevant news because their news does not provide current issues that can affect the viewer’s life. The PBS news gives an appeal to facts rather than an emotional appeal because it states facts that happen around the world but not about close events that can connect to the viewer personally. Overall the news is a

I watch or read the news pretty regularly, but I only watch news which has the traits that I value most. The news to me isn’t about being entertained, it is about learning, in an unbiased, clear, and concise way. Other television shows can entertain, but the news should be reserved for information relevant to people’s everyday lives, allowing them to make informed decisions. I feel this way because I don’t like when a news source is pushing a hidden agenda. I look for a fair telling of both sides of the story. I also feel that because I stay relatively busy, I think it is insulting that the news would choose to waste my time with extraneous background information, off topic statements, or articles over 1,000 words. Most importantly though, It needs to be clear, if I can’t understand it, it’s the worst kind of news, no news. I have chosen three articles regarding the Flint Michigan water crisis to evaluate based on my criteria. One from CNN titled, “Water Crisis in Flint, Michigan, Draws Federal Investigation,” written by Greg Botelho, Sarah Jorgenson, & Joseph Netto, which focuses on the investigation but also background into the crisis. The next article I have chosen an article from the New York Times (NYT). This article titled, “As Water Problems Grew, Officials Belittled Complaints From Flint.” From the contributions of writers, Julia Bosman, Monica Davey, & Mitch Smith. I chose this article from other ones, because this article primarily focuses on politics like who

The biggest breaking story I chose was about the Afghans heading to the polls to vote amid the threats of insurgent attacks. On the CNN website, it seemed like the story was less detailed and descriptive than the other sites. Even though it covered the situation in Afghanistan, the information was delivered in a more passive way than FOXNews and MSNBC, almost as if it was a more opinion-based article. I noticed also that some of the key points that were covered on the CNN site were also covered in the other sites. Information on how many candidates were competing for election and how many seats were available in parliament seemed to be a point that all of the sites included. One main difference in the information that CNN covered, compared

It is clear that in each article I was only getting one side not the full report of the story. However, I do feel that CNN.com did a more accurate look at my topic, which was the Pope at the Paris Summit. The reason I believe that U.S. News’s article is not as good of a news source because when reading it, reads more like a complaint, or a letter to the editor type article than an actual news article on the topic of the Paris Summit. The U.S. News article only had one source and he was a self proclaimed official source, where as the CNN.com piece actually had quotes from several of the different members that were at the summit as well has official comments from Pope Francis. Also the CNN.com piece was worded nicely and had an air throughout the piece of just wanting to give the facts of the story, whereas the U.S News article was force feeding complaints and used wording that almost half way through I just wanted to stop reading because it was an opinion packed piece and only really a few times hinted at facts. Therefore, I would have to say that the CNN.com piece not only gave me facts that I wanted to learn it also peaked my interest in the topic and made me want to go out and research more about the topic from other sites, which I feel is good journalism because it’s hooked the reader unlike the U.S. News piece that was not very factual and made me want to stop

The last and final difficult conversation was a constructive and mind opening experience on the premise of watching and receiving news. During this conversation, my group watched 20 minutes of both MSNBC and Fox News and from there we collectively discussed it. Our first showing was watching Fox News and for me personally it felt like I was watching the tabloids or some might say a reality show. The reasoning behind my viewpoint of it was of them, the newscaster, talking for a like a good 10 minutes about donuts and their relationship between the struggle of the acting directors of Mike Mulvaney and Leandra English of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In addition, the newscasters are still reporting about President Trump’s comment

There were distinct ideological beliefs presented in the articles. MSNBC is very progressive and sees the Democratic party as infallible. In their narrative Republicans are evil, stupid, and racist. If Obama says "jump", MSNBC is already falling off the bridge. CNN tries to present itself as unbiased but fails. It is not an utter failure. At some points the facade of neutrality is believable. But their pro-establishment bias is strong. I felt like they preferred Democrat's; but in a Republican presidence the roles may reverse. Finally Fox News i very conservative and pro-Republican. While CNN and MSNBC treat Obama as a strong leader, Fox contrasts this with depictions of a weak man. Fox was the oppisite extreme of MSNBC. It really just felt

Approximately 57% of Americans get their daily news by watching some kind of nightly news on their televisions, while the internet is not far behind at at 38% (Mitchell 2016). Being a nation of conglomerate monopolies the United States has three major news stations that control a majority of the viewership, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox Television. “The big three”, as they’re know, compete every day for the highest ratings by desperately pulling and keeping in as many viewers as possible, while providing vastly different agenda backed content. Public Broadcasting Service, PBS, draws in a much smaller crowd and with it has a significantly lower budget for stories. While companies like CNN and FOX are able to spend tens of millions of dollars on 24/7

I would to sit and read CNN or Fox News, and not feel like I’m being lied to or pulled on one side. I would like just the news. The only way I can at least acquire a firm understanding of something is by reading multiple new sources. For example, if I want to know what is going on with social issues, I will first go to Huffington Post. Then I will go and find one of the main primetime news like CBS, ABC, or NBC news to compare to Huffington Post. The last search I will do is for an extreme conservative news site like Fox News. When I done reading all three articles, I generally have a good understanding of the

For history the strengths are as follows. First off, it’s a reliable source, it gives first hand accounts of the event, it gave plenty of information, it was accurate information, there was photos taken of the event, and the information given was spot on. Weaknesses are now as follows. It gives an estimate of how many people were killed/injured, it doesn’t tell why the 19 members of Al-Qaeda decided to hijack the 4 american airlines planes, and it doesn’t tell how they were able to hijack the planes. CNN’s strengths are as follows. It gives accurate information, it’s a reliable source, it gives first hand accounts, and it gives live footage of the disaster. CNN’s weaknesses are as follows. It gives an estimate of how many people were injured, it doesn’t tell why the 19 members of Al-Qaeda decided to hijack the 4 american airlines planes, and it doesn’t tell how they were able to hijack the

When discussing whether or not a news source is biased, what “unbiased” news looks like needs to be established. In order to evaluate whether or not bias exists, there needs to be an objective news source that would serve as a comparison; however, finding this objective news source proves to be a problem and that problem lies within the subjective nature of bias (Alessio). This means that there is no clear consensus as to what constitutes bias or not. For example, some studies have shown that there is a liberal media bias due to a greater proportion of liberal journalists and anchors while others have shown a conservative bias due to the fact that news corporations are businesses and that business aspect predispositions the news towards conservatism (Alession). Also, consumers of media are also more likely to perceive bias when introduced to media that ran in opposition to their own position (Eveland). This stems from the fact that people’s notions and personal biases often make-up their own reality and any deviation from it is automatically is rejected as “biased.” However, according to D’Alessio and Allen, there are certain tangible properties of bias that can be applied to help determine if a source is biased. Firstly, the bias must be intentional, influential, threatening to common

Though the misinterpretation and ignorance of honest news through perceptual bias is formed by individuals, it’s a shame that the remaining three-fourths of bias is deliberately carried out by reporters and journalists themselves. The main issue at hand is that journalists today feel that their own opinions are correct and superior to others; therefore, they are sure to only circulate information that will get citizens to see things their way, as opposed to giving an honest, impartial version of the truth. When asked if today’s media influences the opinions of citizens for better or for worse, Shane McNabb, a fellow news consumer, explains that “media outlets influence people when they have obvious biases. They tell you only what they want you to hear, and often out of context. This is often the case for both liberal and conservative outlets, and people end up either not knowing what to believe or taking on the opinion of the biased outlet”