Introduction. As One Looks Through Recent Histories Of

A liberal is a person that believes that the government should provide equality for all, while a conservative is a person that believes in limited government and that the government should provide the necessary freedom for people to pursue their own goals. Over time, it has been argued, mostly by conservatives, that there is a liberal bias in the media. Liberals have combated this idea with the belief that conservative media is devoted to making efforts to invoke fear and division in the general public. Though liberals make a fine counter-argument, it is easier to observe that the media is liberal-biased. The liberal versus conservative debate can be compared to facts versus values. Another reason for bias within the media is that a significant percentage of minorities, or smaller groups within the population that are often thought to be poorer, politically identify themselves as liberals. To make these minorities feel like the government is on their side as well as everyone else’s, the media must accommodate the needs of these minorities. Because of this, the media becomes liberal-biased.

Ever since the 17th century, the newspaper has been produced and blown out of proportion, known as mass media. George A. Krimsky shines his own opinion in his essay, “The Role of the Media in a Democracy.” Krimsky provides many examples, reasoning, and rhetoric devices to expand his argument even more, his argument being that; the press should send out straight facts, let people interpret them, and allow the free press to hold the government accountable.

Using Media today has become a way of life for people all across the world. It is a way for people to stay informed on current events, form opinions on hot topics, as well as determine their political affiliation. Because the media has become such an influential tool, it is important to eliminate bias in order to allow people to develop their individual opinions and become educated members of today’s society. By creating more diversity in journalism, having a more open mind about certain topics, and forming a new mold of media coverage, Americans can create an unbiased source of media that will encourage a more independent and intelligent society.

Human beings are influenced by what they see, hear, or read on the news. Today we have several sources to receive news: newspapers, internet, and radio. However, with this information people come to question what is truly the truth. The Cable News Network (CNN) displays footage of current events happening all around the world. This well-known 24-hour news broadcasting system began to change its traditional pattern of news began to encapsulate the way media directs the foreign policy formulation. For the individuals behind the scenes, including policy makers and academics, the 1990’s was a time of media empowerment and growth. Piers Robinson thesis in the “CNN effect revisited” is the ways in which the media influences foreign policy formulation, socially and politically. In his argumentative essay, Robinson discusses the development of foreign policy since the “war on terror” and the “humanitarian war.” Additionally, Robinson discusses the ways media intervened with political decisions and how the media’s voice created military action. The media that has the privilege to voice opinions, can result in less freedom for the press

In 1995, Kaczynski wrote letters to major media outlets explaining his goals, and demanding that his 35,000 word essay about the future of the industrial society, be published in a major newspaper. He explained in his letters, that if his demands were met, the bombings would come to a halt. The FBI’s delayed response in publishing his works, resulted in more threating letters to kill more people. Shortly thereafter, the FBI and the US department of Justice allowed the essay to be published in the New York Times, and Washington Post. Little did Ted know, the release of his essay would result in the end of his terror. Ted’s brother, David, read the published manifesto, and compared it to an earlier piece of writing by Ted. David submitted the writing to the FBI for comparison, and it seemed after comparison, that they finally had their number one Unabomber suspect. (The FBI, The Unabomer, April 24,

It being the leading source of news since the printing press. We put our faith in the media to report accurate facts unbiasedly. Between 1983 and now the media industry has consolidated from 50 individual companies to 6. That means that though the impression given is that there are a multitude of sources to attain information, the messages being communicated are all one in the same. The limitation of media sources cause a ripple effect of limited information, allowing these companies to control the public’s perception on

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

Once Jim Morrison said that whoever controls the media controls the mind. This shows that he had recognized the immense power and influence that the media has in our day to day lives. The media plays a very important role in the society as the source of information for every person. Hence, it is very hard for the modern society to live without the media. As a result of the media being the major source of information in our society, it is an undeniable fact the media shapes people’s opinions, attitudes and actions on particular issues (Czopp & Monteith, 2006).

For my issue I will be focusing on the influence of the American mainstream media after the September 11th attacks and during the United States’ international military campaign known as the ‘War on Terror’. On September 11, 2001 otherwise known as 9/11, a series of terrorism where committed in which the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda devised four bomber attacks on U.S landmarks killing 2,977 people (CNN). Shortly after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorist (AUMF) and from his administration declared their own definition and objectives regarding the war on terror. The declaration would create not only a mass media indolent but insight a decade long conflict of fear of security

The media in the United States of America has grown on a massive scale in the form of the Liberal Model. This of course entails market-dominated practices and professionalization in journalism in all adequate media aspects. The First Amendment has provided the American citizens with the freedom of speech ever since it was established. This privilege is very evident in today’s society as news media on all sides of the political spectrum gets mass amounts of coverage throughout the country. The U.S. observes never-ending debates going on in the political atmosphere everyday because of the countless issues occurring in the country including the management of the economy, handling of taxes, and many more. Although it is nearly impossible for the media to please everyone in society as a

The national media is instrumental in allowing the electorate to develop opinions about contemporary issues. The media is incredibly influential and its power can be wielded for the benefit of all, or it can become a detriment to society. Some media outlets seek to sensationalize the news, sacrificing informing voters in favor of the bottom line. It is through people and organizations who seek to provide the most accurate and impartial view of an event that popular sovereignty gains much of its power. A commitment to informing the public, even when the information conflicts with a writer’s social and political philosophy, can be a difficult one to maintain. Yet, reporters uphold it everyday. This can be seen in the news site CNN (Cable News Network), which is known for having a liberal bias. Despite said bias, it does not shy away from portraying Hillary Clinton, a democrat, as a flawed candidate in an effort to be unbiased. Such a commitment is essential to creating a political and social dialogue in our nation, and as the saying goes, “when dialogue fails, democracy fails.”

On April 3rd of 1996 in Lincoln, Montana, Ted Kaczynski was arrested and sent to court. Pleading guilty, Kaczynski was addressed as a “Domestic Terrorist.” Serving four life sentences for transporting, mailing, and use of bombs, and also murder of 3 people, Kaczynski was also added another 30 years after his life sentences, no parole, and barely missed the death penalty. No one ever saw this coming in Kaczynski’s life. From an early age, his parents pushed him for academic success. At the age of 16, he was accepted to Harvard with a scholarship. Even though Kaczynski did seem socially awkward, no one thought that he could be diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia. Mainly people thought he didn’t know how to express his greatness, but never

Until the 1980s, the control of the media was in the hands of the national government. From then, the control shifted to private outlets and by the 1990’s, there were more than fifty multinational companies who controlled it (“Mass Media”). Today, only about six major companies control the larger fraction of media in America (Williams, Par. 1). Norman Solomon wrote in the New Political Science Journal that most reporters and editors work for just a few huge companies. These journalists and editors are on the payroll for “mega-media institutions”, of which, only about six exist (Solomon 297). How much will the public learn if these companies generally control the output of information?

As discussed in class, one of the most influential agencies of socialization is the media. The way we see ourselves or the way other people see us come from what we are told by others and what we tell ourselves. In the Better world handbook, the chapter on media states that “the way we think and act in our daily lives is inextricably linked to the information we receive about the world” (Jones, Haenfler and Johnson). The chapter continues to discus how information delivered to us can be bias and this raises the issue on who controls the media and what we see through it. The problem with this could be that that whoever controls the media does not necessary have our best interest in mind and the content that is transmitted through the media is profit driven. . In the article “Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong” gives a perfect accept of how easy it is for information to get omitted based on what people what you to know and what they don’t want you to know. From a young age, people decide what they want you to know, so that they can decide on what they want you to think about certain topics whether its American history or something else, its like the

Thousands of our nation's men and women were fighting for their country, yet the media limited the amount of information that they chose to pass on to the public. Each day the media is faced with the choice of making decisions of what news to pass on, when that news could make a significant difference in someone's life, or in the fate of our nation.