political ideology in the media Essay examples

We live in a society in which media has such a great influence on us, yet the influence is only in certain aspects and on certain people. “Mass media is arguably the most influential in molding public consciousness” (562). People might think that media is managed by a combination of different people but in reality, since the number of media companies is decreasing, only certain people control the industry and what gets to be put out to light. Since media is mostly controlled by a few people who belong to the 1%, the information that goes into the media is influenced by their beliefs as well as race, class, and even gender. Media influences every aspect of our lives since “media plays a key role in defining our cultural tastes, helping us locate

Media sources are categorized as liberal or conservative, both have some similarities, but are also quite different. CBS News is considered a liberal source and one of the breaking news story’s headline on their website is, ‘Tulsa cop charged in death of unarmed black man’ while CNN has this headline, ‘Officer Charged : Tulsa police officer faces manslaughter charge in shooting.’ (CNN) Although they both have the same headline they both have different articles geared towards different views. CNN gears toward the side of the victim’s family, such as inserting several quotes stating, “ This is a small victory” Crutcher’s twin sister Tiffany said, as well as, “The chain breaks here. We’re going to break the chains of police brutality,” she added, “We know the history.” (CNN) While, CBS rarely adds the viewpoint of the victim’s family, except for one that talks about Crutcher’s family relieved for the closing and that the family is “preparing for war.” (CBS) In this case these news sources use the objective of Bias by spin, because they spin towards one side or the other, and uses tone to persuade the reader to one side or the

The media is important for us the people to inform us about our government. In this paper I will show the relationship between the media and Congress. There are many forms of traditional media newspapers and magazines and TV news programs. Until recently people got most of their information and news from traditional sources. I would agree with scholars who argue that the media plays a major role as an agenda setter by focusing the public’s attention on a few issues. Public opinion is shaped in large part by people’s exposure to the media. There are two main areas of media agenda setting the first is reporting the news the second is telling us how to view the news.

     One problem that plagues us everyday without us even realizing it is media bias. We see it in the news. We see it on our favorite sitcoms. We read it everyday in the paper. Yet, we really don't recognize it when we hear it or see it. Media bias is evident in every aspect of the media, yet the problem is that we don't even recognize it when it is right in front of our faces. Are the impressions that we form about individuals a product of the media? Do we form certain opinions about particular types of people based solely on the things we see and hear in the media everyday without even realizing it? The problem is not only that there is media bias present, but also that we can't recognize it when we see

Also one big difference I came across is the language in the Washington post article were more urgent compared to the other 2 newspaper companies. Also, the Washington post articles were significantly longer than the other 2 newspaper companies. The media portrayal of the DC Sniper differed based on the newspaper company. The Washington Post uses quotes from the citizens to show the portrayal of the DC snipers. Also, in the Washington Post articles they portray the snipers as monsters doing these senseless acts of violence on the community making all the citizens live in fear. The other two newspaper companies mainly just talk about the events. They don't go into very much detail about the snipers

The clear distinction comes with the content of the pictures and again it revolves around the interests of organizations: money and social issues. One major difference and an unexpected part was the ad for Oracle in the WSJ which took up as much space if not more than the Reid commentary, the Russian test, or even the picture from the Atlanta crisis. The length of the Google article was also distinct, where the NYT gave a full column, the WSJ gave it a small paragraph. Another point to note is the display and position of the headlines or newsfeed. The WSJ had two broad

Another difference between the two articles is the scholarly source goes into detail on law suits about cheerleading not being a sport and participant discrimination (Liguori, 2014), while the Washington Post did not talk about any accounts on the subject (Bonesteel, 2014). Also the Washington Post article had many advertisements (Bonesteel, 2014), where the scholarly source had none. The scholarly source was also 32 pages (Liguori, 2014), whereas the Washington Post had very few. A major difference the two articles have is the scholarly source is professional, while the Washington Post is not, the end of the article talks about how the writer is no longer with the paper and how the two had “an amicable divorce” (Bonesteel,

When looking at the tones of The New York Times, Fox and The Huffington Post I saw different contrasts. The New York Times which is a direct news outlet, had exceptionally positive and peppy tone in the greater part of the articles/recordings about the shooting. The tone of the articles was based on "the diversion must go on" allegorically and truly! Besides, the tone of the articles was more matter of act and breezed over the realities. Interestingly, the Tone of the articles and recordings on Fox News- - the preservationist outlet- - appeared to be more genuine. Likewise, the tone of Fox News appeared to be terrified, there were refreshes consistently and arrangements of what they knew about the shooting. Finally, the tone of Huffington present

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

The New York Times has a reputation as an extremely bias newspaper and wrote an article titled, “Conservative Takeover of Kansas is Imminent, Warns the Sons of the Times’ Publisher” by Clay Waters. This article bashed conservatives in Kansas and

One of the greatest revolutions in the twentieth century was not political in nature, however, it aided in many different political revolutions. This revolution was the communications revolution. The twentieth century has experienced one of the greatest changes in means of communication including technologies such as radio, motion pictures, the Internet, advanced communications and most importantly the television. Sadly, political leaders and the government to convince or persuade the masses that their ideas supercede those of others have utilized these technologies.

In our democratic society, mass media is the driving force of public opinion. Media sources such as Internet, newspaper, news-broadcasts, etc, play significant roles in shaping a person’s understanding and perception about the events occurred in our daily lives. As long as the newspapers, internet, network television, etc, continued to be easily accessible to the public, the media will continue to have an influence in shaping its opinions. Factors such as agenda-setting, framing and priming help shape the public opinions. Agenda-setting is when the media focuses their attention on selected issues on which the public will form opinion on, whereas framing allows the media to select certain aspects about the problem and then

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." This quote by A.J. Liebling illustrates the reality of where the media stands in today's society. Over the past twenty years there has been an increase in power throughout the media with regard to politics. The media's original purpose was to inform the public of the relevant events that occurred around the world. The job of the media is to search out the truth and relay that news to the people. The media has the power to inform the people but often times the stories given to the public are distorted for one reason or another. Using slant and sensationalism, the media has begun to shape our views in society and the process by which

The media also influences how the public perceives issues. The placement of political issues during news coverage influences the importance of political issues on society. The ranking of media issues and society’s ranking suggest that the media influence the public (Weaver, 1996). The importance of an issue may rests on its time slot, sequence in the news story, or in the advertisement for the news.

Stuart Hall has posited that the concepts of individual dream states can be brought on a macroscopic scale to media text. In particular, "nightmares" of individuals, can be related to the semiological analysis of a given media text in relation to dominant ideology and culture in general. His main points in this are twofold, first is to point out that the more horrible and "nightmarish" a media scenario (i.e. story) is, the more difficult it is to de-construct the ideological markers that serve as the basis for the text. The second, and perhaps more important, is that the ideological representation in the nightmare represents a repressed wish of society and has increased threat to the dominant class, or the bourgeois.