The Russian hacking of the DNC was an event filled with a great amount of confusion and skepticism. Many people do believe that the Russians were involved in hacking the DNC, leading to Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election. Other people, however, believe there is insufficient evidence to believe that something like this would occur; even if it did, these same people believed it was necessary because it exposed the faults of the DNC. The two articles that I selected discuss this situation in depth, but they write their stories by using different approaches. Sam Biddle, an author from the website, The Intercept, writes about how the information given to support the claims that the Russians hacked the DNC are not enough. The …show more content…
Their exigence was to clear up any misunderstanding about the Russian hacking and provide enough information to their audience to make their own conclusion. However, they don’t persuade their audience in any way, almost like they were avoiding that. In both articles, they mention that the information provided is inconclusive. Biddle says “Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this” which indicates that it is extremely difficult to believe that the hackings are true. Calabresi and Rebala provided a quote from the private security firms that say “their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is as close as it gets”, implying that even though the information is not conclusive, it is enough to believe the hackings were done by the Russians. Biddle’s article gives reasons for why there isn’t enough information which signifies the difference in the two approaches. These articles are in the political genre and they don’t do much to break away from their genres, but they are different from each other. Typically, in these types of genres, the article is written from a politically biased perspective. If the writer is more conservative, they’ll write with right-winged views; the same thing if it were written from a liberal point of view. With these articles, you can
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
In other words, the website reports newsworthy and marginally newsworthy stories, but if the reader is a discerning individual who likes to make up his/her own mind, it would be wise to consult other sources to validate the stories first. Using misleading, emotionally charged, headlines that fall short of alignment to the content of an article is also common (Remember the guidelines for writers: “We write the headlines for you). Readers of the Conservative Tribune need to understand they are not going to read anything on the Conservative Tribune website that may be damaging to the conservative cause. Articles are “ultra-conservative”
According to Newsmax, “The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump’s past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post associate editor, Bob Woodward, said Wednesday.” Woodward is looking into Donald Trump’s real estate deals saying that “The New York real estate world is more complex than the CIA. Look, the job at The Washington Post has to be tell us everything about who the eventual nominee will be in both parties, 15-part, 16-part series, 20-part series, we want to look at every part of their lives and we're never going get the whole story of course but we can get the best attainable.” It was also said that the Post is working to get the essence of Hilary Clinton. Woodward does not believe that Clinton purposely tried to use her private email server to send out classified information. In another article by Newsmax, “Woodward called Hillary Clinton's connections to "pay for play" through the Clinton Foundation and the access she had given when she was secretary of state "corrupt" and something that voters should be troubled by. Yes, it’s corrupt; it’s a scandal,” Woodward told the "Fox News Sunday" panel monitored by Wednesday's presidential debate moderator Wallace, and referencing back Wednesday's
Fake new became a popular topic in news regarding politically aligned news channels and outlets. For example, YourNewsWire is an online news outlet based in Los Angeles. Based on this website, Hillary Clinton’s victory in the popular vote was due to voter fraud of 25 million votes (Kosoff). YourNewsWire used evidence of an investigation the NPR, National Public Radio, conducted. Though the article’s claim of voter fraud seemed compelling, as evidence was to support the argument was supple. Yet the evidence was incorrectly used. The NPR was involved in this investigation of voter fraud, but only published the information as Pew Research Center conducted the analysis of credibility. Another piece of falsified data is that the investigation was not conducted as a means to discredit Hillary Clinton’s victory in the popular vote, as the investigation was completed in 2012, prior to Clinton and Trump’s campaign for office. This is only one example of skewed stories and biased articles. The creators of YourNewsWire, Sean Adl-tabatabai and husband, Sinclair Treadway, were politically aligned with Bernie Sanders for the 2016 election (Baum). The reputation that YourNewsWire has created for itself has plummeted. Google no longer supports this website with ad-sponsored money, and other accredited websites, such as Snopes, investigate the validity of news articles such as these and discredit their findings
The Lewinsky Scandal… A perfect example as to why we cannot accept everything at face value before carefully examining it first. Everyone thought President Clinton was behaving himself in the White House, but, as it turns out, he was most definitely not. This can be the same for history. We must carefully consider different aspects of articles so that we do no make the mistake of believing everything we read. In order to fully understand an article, we must understand the author that wrote it. It is necessary to examine prejudices, sources, information left out, and missing background information before accepting an article. This method of critical analysis allows us to better understand the article
Valdimir Putin through Wikileaks exposed the corruption and unethical behavior within the Democratic Party. The arrogance of Clinton’s campaign thought they could just blame the Russians without addressing the content of any of the documents leaked. They strongly believed NOT confirming the authenticity of the documents would be enough for the American People. The establishment in the Democratic Party helped Hillary Clinton win the nomination over Bernie Sanders, which they should blame themselves for the strongest repudiation by the American People after losing all three branches of government.
Lastly, each article differs in the way they reveal their overall purpose. Cohen’s article, for example, puts his main focus towards defending the craft that he has dedicated his entire life to perfecting, along with manipulating his audience into believing a straw man that he set up in his article. The straw man, of course, was President Trump, and Cohen continuously used diatribe in order to lessen the president’s stature. After Cohen had lowered Trump’s credibility, Cohen used a questioning strategy to manipulate his audience even more into thinking that Trump is on the same path as Hitler was under his rule of Nazi Germany. In the end, Cohen’s purpose was directed at persuading his audience into believing that news outlets such as the
Despite being printed for the same date, in this case January 30th, 2014, the distinction can still be made, and by this it can be said that if the titles of the newspapers were removed it would not be hard to distinguish one from the other. By placing the front page of the New York Times (NYT) and of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) side by side, the reader can piece together few similarities and a greater amount of contrast between the two. These are especially true when looking at the stories that were covered, the amount of space some stories took compared to others, and the slants many of the headlines took.
First, I try to find very diverse articles. Secondly, I read as many as I can. Next, I tried to find a quote here and there that I think is either politically left or right. Then, I try to my match my quotes with at least one of the paragraphs presented. Finally, I count up all the quotes that share common traits of either the left or right.
I thoroughly enjoyed the task of depth analysis and comparison as this was an excellent way to compare differing author’s choices and opinions. It was an opportunity to dive deeper into the text and break apart varying elements. It truly showed how straight, un-slanted news reports do not question the readers and simply inform them. On the other hand, a particular columnist’s piece challenges the reader and forces them to wrestle with their own opinion. Maureen Dowd, particularly executed this task remarkably. As she did not heavily focus on her liberal opinions that often, but rather realized that even her party had flaws. She looked at the bigger picture of this election and analyzed in such a way, that it wasn’t always evident which viewpoint she supported. She was open minded in order to bring controversy to her readers and spark a legitimate
LA Times put in the first part of the text leading the article, which means this is the most important information in body of the article (Retzinger). The writer leads the rest of contents of the articles by opening the question about his wrongdoing and problem. The perspective that the writer illustrates is the tension is not caused by the campus or students, but by president Trump’s or the speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Also, the contents of the article are framed by emphasizing single side of opinions. The writer mostly interviewed people who are more likely on the democrat side than republican to support his main argument. On the other hand, the writer of NY Times article puts the Trump’s tweet in the tail, which signifies that this is extra information (Retzinger). What this mean is that Trump’s message is not his main argument or topic, but rather it is extra contents. The writer is more likely emphasizing the problems of the financial and physical damage as well as the free speech movement in Berkeley campus. As a result, the framed organization of articles influences the readers in the way of leading them to the certain
The New York Times includes important sources thato help the reader feel more secure about the information given. The type of propaganda that the journalists Mark Landler and Jonathan Weisman often used thewas Testimonial device. The New York Times’ quotes in the article were by people who are well- known by the populace. A quote stated by someone who is well recognized generally helps the reader believe what is being said versus a quote by a person who is not well recognized. This is why Landler and Weisman decided to include President Obama and Secretary of¬ State John Kerry in for quotes in their article. By using these individuals, it also links the story and helps verify the information that was given to the targeted audience. End The Lie’s article had numerous quotes, but some were by recognizable people and others were anonymous. Having an anonymous source in an article is skeptical because anyone could have said it, and that person may not know much about the Russian proposal or the any other diplomatic path that is trying to be focusedsolutions. Also, on or the journalist could have easily added their own opinion by quoting themselves and hiding behind an anonymous source.
The first article I have decided to analyze is, “Obama Secures Iran Nuclear Deal with Barbara Mikulski Vote,” written by Ted Barrett, Jeremy Diamond, Elise Labott and Laura Koran. The article over views the nuclear deal with Iran
I also noted something straight out of page 61 (though I believe it is unintentional). The book talks of our uncanny ability to make connections through sensory information. For instance, her choice of wording left me seeing her writing as slightly skewed. She uses hyper-partisan in her connection with both the left and right wing. Yet, surrounds the words right-wing and far right with “talking heads” “paranoia”, and “conspiracy theories”, left-wing gets “fringe”. Fringe means unconventional, paranoia means delusional. In her quest to turn people on to truth and bring us all together, she very lightly pushes us apart by making us see one side as unconventional and the other as possessed bobble-heads. Words and context matter. I feel that this article in its entirety was an attempt on the writer’s part to make a case that social media is more of an ornamental entertainment tool than a reliable news outlet. This she did.
In 1865, a small political magazine was founded and given the name The Nation. This magazine was not meant to be a mainstream magazine that tries not to offend anyone. Rather The Nation was originally intended to provide the facts of the current issues and avoid exaggeration and political alliance with any party or sect. (The Nation’s founding prospectus, 1865) Nearly 140 years later, The Nation continues to raise eyebrows with its bold publications and political slant. Upon examining The Nation’s printed editorials and comments and the magazine’s website, it can easily be found that The Nation is a clearly liberal magazine as it has been for quite some time.
When Trump’s campaign was just taking off, “a 35 page dossier written by an ex British Intelligence agent compiled many allegations about Trump and Russia, even including that Russia had blackmail over Trump” (Osnos et al. 4). Senator of Arizona, John McCain, “passed the dossier to the FBI in hopes of an investigation being placed on Trump” (Osnos et al. 5). This was the start of Trump’s vengeance toward director of FBI, James Comey. When the dossier was released to the public, Trump and Putin had some words to say about it. They both “portrayed the dossier as a fake and full of false accusations” (Osnos et al. 3). This made the accusations of Trump and Russia being the arbitrators behind the hacking more evident than before (Osnos et al).