Another story that I found bias in was a British story posted on CNN about a German politician who is proposing that marriages have a time limit. After seven years of marriage the couple can decide to extend their marriage or not. This is supposed to help decrease the divorce rate in Germany and help with financial struggle burdening the country.
But at the end of the story the reporter commented, in a condescending tone, that the German politician suggestion probably comes from experience because her second marriage ended in divorce and lasted seven years.
The reporter in this story also said, the politician has come up with a “radical solution.”
I think the reporter’s tone, comment on the politician’s personal life, and the comment about the “radical” proposal are all injections of bias into the story that do influence the viewer. If I were unaware of these biases, I would have a negative feeling towards this German politician and her policy, because of this reporter’s story.
Monday, September 24, 2007
9-24-07 fire pics but no story
I was on the Cnn website, as I often am, looking for visual bias in the video new stories. Each one that I viewed seemed objective until I found the video entitled: “Department Store Fire.” I clicked on the video clip (with a caption that read: “Australian firefighters battle a fire in a Hobart department store.”) and the entire story was just shots of firefighters hosing down a building. There was no commentary at all. I think this story had absolutely no reason to be on Cnn- places burn down all the time and those fires don’t make the news. So, why should this? Especially when there was no story behind it. I think this is a lapse in cnn’s judgment and I don’t think it should have been posted, on what I consider to be a reputable news website.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
9-11-07 Bias Countdown with Oldermann
MSNBC show airing September 11, “Countdown with Keith Oldermann - Six years later, where are those to blame now? Iraq and 9/11 stand connected and we are suffering the consequences” was filled with bias remarks.
Oldermann was very biased (partisan biased) when his feelings towards the Bush administration were clearly displayed.
First Oldermann started by criticizing former Bush cabinet member Powell for inadvertently giving the UN wrong information about the weapons of mass destruction. He called Rumsfeld “unrepentant” and said that he “used September 11th to pursue his goal of bombing Iraq.” This is a personal opinion and this is subjective news. Who is to say that it was the personal goal of someone to bomb a country? Even if this segment was commentary, it was not made clear to the viewer that it was because there was no verbiage on the screen indicating this.
Oldermann also called Cheney the creator of his “cherry picking Intel apparatus.” This is again assumption and opinion. Oldermann said that Bin Laden is benefiting from the war.
Oldermann stated that we (Americans) spent so much time in a country (Iraq) “that had neither means nor motive to threaten us” but that “tempted Mr. Bush and those around him who wish to transform the Middle East.”
This entire segment is entirely too one-sided. If it is news, this reporter should be thrown off the air. And if it is commentary, then MSNBC should have made that MUCH more clear to the viewer.
Oldermann was very biased (partisan biased) when his feelings towards the Bush administration were clearly displayed.
First Oldermann started by criticizing former Bush cabinet member Powell for inadvertently giving the UN wrong information about the weapons of mass destruction. He called Rumsfeld “unrepentant” and said that he “used September 11th to pursue his goal of bombing Iraq.” This is a personal opinion and this is subjective news. Who is to say that it was the personal goal of someone to bomb a country? Even if this segment was commentary, it was not made clear to the viewer that it was because there was no verbiage on the screen indicating this.
Oldermann also called Cheney the creator of his “cherry picking Intel apparatus.” This is again assumption and opinion. Oldermann said that Bin Laden is benefiting from the war.
Oldermann stated that we (Americans) spent so much time in a country (Iraq) “that had neither means nor motive to threaten us” but that “tempted Mr. Bush and those around him who wish to transform the Middle East.”
This entire segment is entirely too one-sided. If it is news, this reporter should be thrown off the air. And if it is commentary, then MSNBC should have made that MUCH more clear to the viewer.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
9-4-07 Chutes and Ladders
I have never seen a more biased and opinionated story in the Metro section than the one I read from the Sunday Sept. 2nd edition of the Dallas Morning News. The story entitled “Life’s full of chutes, ladders” by Steve Blow discussed Blow’s opinion on how children learn life lessons. He compares actions to chutes (unfortunate or bad happenings/ decisions) and ladders (fortunate or good happenings/decisions).
The part that struck me as the most opinionated was as follows:
“As a parent, your work would be mostly done if you could just teach your child to pause before an action and ask: ‘Chute? Ladder?’ Some are obvious. Ditching school? A definite chute. Turning off the TV and tackling that dreaded homework. A dutiful ladder. Others are harder to gauge at first. Attention from the popular kids at school? Ladder! Smirnoff Ice in the parking lot with the popular kids? Oh, cute. Some start so small. Tiny tattoo on the hip? More cute than chute….”
I think Blow went way too far when he labeled those who get tattoos. He is also being very stereotypical when he assumes that the popular kids drink alcohol underage.
I think this story is a prime example of a journalist injecting opinion into his writing. It really makes the story completely invalid in my mind and I cannot even concentrate on the author’s point because I am too distracted by his opinions.
The part that struck me as the most opinionated was as follows:
“As a parent, your work would be mostly done if you could just teach your child to pause before an action and ask: ‘Chute? Ladder?’ Some are obvious. Ditching school? A definite chute. Turning off the TV and tackling that dreaded homework. A dutiful ladder. Others are harder to gauge at first. Attention from the popular kids at school? Ladder! Smirnoff Ice in the parking lot with the popular kids? Oh, cute. Some start so small. Tiny tattoo on the hip? More cute than chute….”
I think Blow went way too far when he labeled those who get tattoos. He is also being very stereotypical when he assumes that the popular kids drink alcohol underage.
I think this story is a prime example of a journalist injecting opinion into his writing. It really makes the story completely invalid in my mind and I cannot even concentrate on the author’s point because I am too distracted by his opinions.
9-4-07 Glory Bias
In the Sunday Sept. 2nd edition of the Dallas Morning News, an article on the front page is entitled: Oversight lax over DISD's extra pay.
I believe that the only reason this article is front page and above the fold is because of the “Glory Bias.” After the jump to page 10A, the story goes on to say: “Last fall, DISD began examining supplemental pay about the same time The News began requesting records.” This line shot up a red flag in my mind, because it’s as if the one of the reasons they published this story is because they wanted to show the public their “glorious” investigative findings.
I think that this story does have merit, because there are facts to back up the reporter’s statements. However, I think this made the cover because of The News’ desire for part of the spotlight.
I believe that the only reason this article is front page and above the fold is because of the “Glory Bias.” After the jump to page 10A, the story goes on to say: “Last fall, DISD began examining supplemental pay about the same time The News began requesting records.” This line shot up a red flag in my mind, because it’s as if the one of the reasons they published this story is because they wanted to show the public their “glorious” investigative findings.
I think that this story does have merit, because there are facts to back up the reporter’s statements. However, I think this made the cover because of The News’ desire for part of the spotlight.
Monday, September 3, 2007
9-3-07
On ccn.com there was a “Story” titled: “Trapped kayakers saved” but there was no written story, it was just a video clip. I think the only reason it made it to CNN was because of a visual bias – images sell – people want to see interesting pictures and video. This story would not have surfaced on the national level if there was no video. It just simply showed three people being rescued from under a bridge by firefighters after they had been trapped by rushing water.
9-3-07
Article: "SMU opens with sobering mission" printed in Dallas Morning News Aug. 26, 2007.
This article was published just at SMU began its school year after a previous semester in which three student deaths took place. The article’s purpose was to see what SMU is doing now to try and prevent similar future tragedies. The article interviewed a faculty, administration members and parents, but failed to interview students. Since this article is about SMU and since the students make up the university, why would their opinions NOT be included in the article? I think this omission makes the article biased.
This article was published just at SMU began its school year after a previous semester in which three student deaths took place. The article’s purpose was to see what SMU is doing now to try and prevent similar future tragedies. The article interviewed a faculty, administration members and parents, but failed to interview students. Since this article is about SMU and since the students make up the university, why would their opinions NOT be included in the article? I think this omission makes the article biased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)