Read this article then answer the following in the comments section of the blog.
In what ways can a newspaper show bias other than coming out and supporting a candidate?
Is is more important for a newspaper to print the best and most important news, or be fair to all parties?
What is the logical flaws in trying to achieve fairness for each political party?
Does it hurt the credibility of a news organization such as MSNBC or Fox News to present the news and then have shows which are politically biased on them (Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity on Fox News; Steve Oberman on MSNBC)?
In order to get full credit for the assignment you must post once by Tuesday, once on Wednesday, and once on friday.
Your posts need to show knowledge, critical thinking, and must show that you read the article and also have read the responses. Feel free to post more often should you choose to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
Here is the link to the article we read earlier if you would like to reference it as well.
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/1161239.html
I believe that journalists can cover one candidate or the other more if one is simply more interesting. I dont think that it should have to much of an impact on either one. As long as there is still coverage on both. yet on the other side, it could give one candidate an advantage in popularity over the other if people know more about them.
I think that when the newspaper wants to print out more stories on one candidate then the should. If the public wants to hear more about one person then another then instead of being politically fair give the public what they want to hear. It may give one candidate more publishity over the other but its a competition so they best wins.
anything a newspaper prints is seen as bias to somebody. Articles that have an impact positively for negatively show bias.
I think it is important for newspapers to print what they think is the most important info. Being fair shouldn't be the first priority.
Whatever your opinion is it will always reflect some bias. You will always have bias.
No it doesn't hurt FOX and CNBC to have those shows. People watch those shows to see opinions not for info.
There are different ways a newspaper can show bias, such as making one candidate look better than the other by printing positive articles about one, and negative articles about the other. They could also just print more pictures and articles about one candidate all together. This being said, it is the job of a newspaper to get the best, most important, and most interesting stories out to the public. If one candidate makes for the best articles, the newspaper has a responsibility to print those articles. Obviously, if they make it completely fair, one candidate is going to be very interesting, and the other will just be unnecessary news.
A newspaper can show bias by simply reporting information that reflects positively or negatively on the candidate, persuading the reader to feel a certain way about the candidate. I think it is more important for the reporter to print the best and most important news, because that is the news that is referred to the most in other papers and the news that most people care to read about because it is the most important news of the moment. Logical flaws in trying to achieve fairness for both parties is virtually impossible because pieces on either political party will always be biased. The credibility of a news organization will constantly be hurt because having shows that are politically biased will happen often because politics are almost always biased.
I feel that it is in the best interest of the paper to publish the most interesting and captivating story, rather than worry about being fair to both parties. However publising the most interesting story may not be beneficail to the party that is being written about. It could be something reched about the party and insulting. But it should be published in the interest of the newspaper. I feel that we should satisfy the publics interest and gossip in order to fuel the energy created
One canidate is going to be favored over the other. So why not let the writer voice his personal opinion in between the lines by the way he reports on the cannidate? Kind of reminds me of the freedom of the Press thing we just wrote. Would this not qualify as freedom of the press if I wanted to praise McCains Experince and bash Obama's lack of experice?
Newspapers can show bias by only giving positive news about one of the candidates and negative press against the opposing candidate. But however journalism is always biased no matter what. I believe its more important for a newspaper to be fair then by only reporting the best most important news. It your job as a journalist to report the news regardless of fairness. If one candidate make more news is easier to write about that person rather than writing old news about the other candidate
I think that journalists can be bias towareds one canidate if they post more articled about one canidate, or they print more pictures over one. I think that they should print the stories that are more interesting to the viewers, but to also keep in mind to not be bias to anyone or the other or it will hurt the stations credibility.
I think that journalists can be bias towareds one canidate if they post more articled about one canidate, or they print more pictures over one. I think that they should print the stories that are more interesting to the viewers, but to also keep in mind to not be bias to anyone or the other or it will hurt the stations credibility.
I think that the news papers and magazines don't intentionally be biased. They just print the stories that are more intresting which in turn would sell more copies when someone sees the cover. It does help the canidate who's getting more covarge because you would forget about the other guy. And as they say, "There's no such thing as bad press".
i believe that when a newspaper has more to write about towards one candidate than the other that they should print it. while both needs coverage, its okay for one to have more. a newspaper can show bias by having more positive information on one candidate and less about the other, indirectly making the reader lean towards one or the other. if the newspaper is trying to achieve political fairness to all parties then it could possibly miss out on a more intersting story that could come off as biased, but still more capitvating and if they are not biased, then that story will go without being printed.
I belive that this article shows the differences of the newspaper and media coverage between the two canidates very well. I also consider that newspapers should print the best stories, but also be fair to the parties to a certain extent. To elaborate, a newspaper should include both canidates equaly, but if there is a more intersting story the readers have the right to view it then to have it withheld for the sake of fairness. I feel that a newspapers crediability is hurt when they are endeavoring to be fair and unbiased, then after all their hard work, have a TV show come in and be completly biased and inconsiderate. I thought this article was very interesting in the way it states facts and statistics instead of choosing a side, and leaving that job for the readers.
Newspapers and political journalists will cover the most interesting subject(Barack Obama), in order to satisfy the consumer/client(You and me). While this is bias and maybe politically unfair, and may hurt the credibility of newspapers, they must sell their product. In this case, Barack Obama is being heavily publicized, at the expense of John McCain, and there is little reason to be upset at the press who cover the two presidential candidates.
1) I believe that the newspaper can just give out little hints to show they are supporting on candidate. For example the newspaper agrees with Obama’s view on the War on Iraq. The newspaper could say something like. I agree with Obama’s view on the War on Iraq and then explain about it or if they cleverly hide it and say Obama’s view on the War on Iraq will help us get our soldiers out of there faster. This shows that the newspaper journalist agrees without openly admitting it.
2) It would be fair and proper to submit news that is fair to all parties, but you don’t read the newspaper and find an extensive article on the green party or the socialist party. You find articles about the main parties Democratic and Republican articles. So it would be fair to submit news to all parties, but no one really submits news about all parties. More people mainly people who aren’t that interested in the election rather see great quality and important news about one person rather than several bad quality articles about multiple candidates/parties.
3) You might be contradicting yourself and you’ll be so concerned about being fair that really you’re diminishing the quality of the article and the substance.
4) Yes, dramatically if you have a news organization that says something like. Fox News fair and balance and then you have politically biased shows on them. It will hurt there credibility even if each bias show were bias about different parties for example one show would be liberal and another would be conservative.
Ways that news papers can show bias other than out right supporting a candidate is by out right discouraging a candidate, or by telling one side of the story, given the hypothetical situation that McCain and Obama have an argument and the story gets covered and you only show one side of the situation so that readers instantly decide who was in the right, or simply persuading a reader to think the way you do. I think that it is equally important to print the best news they can and fairly represent both parties involved. The logical flaws in trying to achieve fairness for each political party is having an opinion, people as a whole have an opinion and it in my opinion is difficult to keep out of the news. I personally don’t think the credibility of news organizations such as MSNBC or Fox News is injured by presenting the news and then having shows which are politically biased on it. For instance, Sean Hannity is an opinion talk show. Of course it’s going to be biased. News stations report the news, talk shows talk about the news.
A newspaper can show bias by circulating more stories on one candidate over the others.i think that its completely fair even if one is more known than the other depending on the publics want for infomation. Whose to say that there has to be equal publication? it should be up to the writers knowing that there are always going to be supporters on both sides.
A newspaper can be bias by stating their own personal opinions negatively or positively on the candidate. They can make it look as if it's better than the other candidate. The newspaper should print the best and most important news because that's what people want to read. We're writing for the people, so their interests should be our main focus. Politics is a big topic on many various shows and people are going to be biased no matter what. The news organization has been and is going to get hurt.
Newspapers are always sowing bias. That is simply human nature and news is always written by people. Newspapers show there bias not only by giving a certain candidates a lot of face time on the front page, but also by not reporting the news of the other candidates or by only reporting negative news about them. At the same time the purpose of a newspaper is to report news and if there is only news for one candidate then that is all they can do and the news may appear one sided. This is wear the word fairness gets thrown around a lot, but to strive for fairness and not the truth is selling out to the rabble rousers of this world. The credibility of a news station is not diminished by having shows that are bias as long as the shows admit to being so. To be bias and claim to be fair is much worse.
Keaton Bass
You can't blame the media for the extra coverage of Obama without looking at the situation. If Obama wins, he will become the first Non-white president in the history of America. No disrespect to Mcain, but if Obama wins it will be much bigger history. It will be just as big as Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson. I think Howell's article is missing a big part of the argument by not listing what Mcain has done while Obama was in Europe in the Middle East. If Mcain should get as much attention as Obama, he should be doing just as much before complaining.
i think that there really isnt anything anyone can do about being bias. everyone has their own opinion on it and the truth is the society wants to see and hear the best and most important information out there.
Bias journalism happens alot and i think that these stories are bias just to one candidate. Journalists should not cover one candidates over the other another, or atleast say more postive things about one another. I would say that it gives one candidate an unfair advantage.
A newspaper to me shows bias when they take a stand for or against a candidate. That being said it is okay for newspapers to be biased as long as they present all the facts.
i totally disagree with trenton because he says equality is not neccesary in journalism. EQUALITY IS ESSENTIAL. i agree with most everyone else because they some logical thinking.
I agree with what your saying, People make to big of a deal if the newspaper print more stories than the other, but the truth is that one is just more interesting than the other
A newspaper can show bias other than coming out and supporting a canidate by either talking more about them, writing more articles on their campaign and or acheivments, or printing more pictures about them then the other canidate(s). By doing this, a newspaper wouldn't specifically say they perfer this canidate over another, but show their opinion by printing more about one. That way, the readers would know more about one canidate, and therefore be more interested.
In the end, it is all about the facts. You can say whatever you wish but if you don't have numbers to back it up, it doesn't mean anything. Samsonloftin makes a good point that we are all human and will show some bias. If you like Obama's plan on the war better than Mcain's, you can state that. People who complain that Mcain isn't getting enough credit, they should support why they think his plan is better than Obama's. But if a paper can prove that the plan is better, than they can give any reason why they may support it more.
I agree with Dorothy's statement about the TV stations credibility. People watch talk shows to hear what they have to say. If people are getting upset over the host's opinion then don't watch the show. If you are just looking to get info then watch just watch the news.
I agree with many and most of the responses given. It's not the journalist's fault if one candidate is more interesting to the public, and it's not the newspaper's fault in printing the stories-they're just doing their job.
Samson is correct. the bias of news shows is often sudle and will go unnoticed and only subconscious precieved. which is all the more dangerous because people are not aware they are being tricked
i think that nick made a good point in saying that someone will always think that youre being biased as a newspaper. no matter what you write. but it is important to put in the best news as possible
I agree with Nick in the sense that all newspapers will always show some bias. It is pretty impossible to not show bias when addressing controversial subjects. I also agree with Tim's point in always printing the most important story. I think that Samson brought up a lot of good points, especially that newspapers constantly drop little hints that show whom they favor.
Commenting on Robbie's post, I would have to agree with him that if Obama were to win the presidential election this would be a big huge break in US History and I think if Obama were to be elected it would relieve some of the racial problems in the US. Although it would also increase racial problems if Obama were to bring the country even lower than it already is.
Morgan...you stated that it is the writers responciblity to know that there are going to be bias articals written about the cannidates, well does that mean that they should go on writting bias reviews? Do they really need to be feeding that fire? can't they break that mold and write a fair paper?
I am not going to lie it was very hard to understand Keaton Bass's writing because of poor spelling and grammar however what i did get out of it i completely disagree with what he said overall. While his statements about "fairness" may be a good argument. He has absolutly no proof of this and i feel he is writing off of personal feelings that bias him. It is not a fact that papers have a bias by nature and to be honest if they are biased. which they are not. they would not admit to it like keaton bass would say would so that is rediculous. Congratulations Keaton Bass.
Love Tim Riswold
Moo!
darling...i think you miss understand me. Im not saying that they should be bias but that its with in there right to be. Fairness in an election is not as neccesary because there are always going to be bias people one both sides."porkchop"
i think that morgan made a good point when she stated that its fair to favor one over the other even if one is more publicized than the other depending on what the public wants. good job.
I agree with Holy about the how journalists print alot of bias stories, but I do disagree with how she said they should report the same amount of news. They can't report the same amout of coverage for each canidate. There isn't always a story about each canident and they shouldn't just make up a story to be "fair".
I wanted to comment on what Tim said; I agree that newspapers should publish the most interesting story because newspapers are a business and they need to write interesting stories to gain subsrcibers, these stories don't have to agree with anyone elses opinion so long as the facts are true and that the story gives the subsrcibers what they want
I agree with what rachel said because it really should be about which is the best candidate. I agree in saying let the best candidate win, if you want publicity go do something that stands out...isnt that also what its about
I believe that news papers should not be bias even if they present all the facts. People should not have to read a newspaper that is bias one way. Basically
I disagree whith you if you think a newspaper can be bias.
i do agree that newpapers should try to keep both sides equal and try not be bias but then again that could hurt the newspaper. people want to hear about all the most important news and if they cut their story short on say Barack obama for John Mccain, people might get angry or visa versa
yeah
I agree with Sarah and all of the people saying write what's the best and most important news. It's going to get alot more postive feed back than I think straight un-biased news would get.
Samson makes another good comment about the factor of what happens after the election. While the economy is in such a bad position already and there really is nowhere to go but up. If he makes little or no progress, people may change their view on minority presidents, and just give the racist voters more power behind their argument. While Obama getting elected in the first place is huge step for America, the results afterwards are just as important.
The logical flaws of endeavoring to acheive fairness is that life is not fair, why should the newspaper be? If a person at school is more popular and interesting than another, they're going to recive more attention, so is an article in the newspaper. Plus, if a newspaper goes out of their way to be fair and unbiased, the newspaper is going to suck. A newspaper isn't supposed to say please and thankyou, and hold the door open for other people. The paper's job is to state the facts and the most facinating articles.
I agree with David who agreed with Tim. The newspaper is just like any other business trying to make a profit. They need to print what the people want to hear and if its mostly about one person than they should print those stories.
i think that nick made a good point, anything a newspaper prints will be thought of as bias to someone i would add that u cant realy please everyone. someone somewhere will be offended or mensioned less no matter what the situation
i think that nick made a good point, anything a newspaper prints will be thought of as bias to someone i would add that u cant realy please everyone. someone somewhere will be offended or mensioned less no matter what the situation
Commenting off of Robbie's comment. Minority presidents will steadily decrease racial problems if they do well as president. Although when you look at the presidents we have today, they are all white and when they bring our country down, it doesn't increase racial problems, but decreases how people view the president and what party they are in.
i agree with what morgan said , there is always bias in an election anyways so why question the bias in a published paper.
I think people should be as bias as they want to isnt that what its kind of about.
Im completely agree with Kristen's latest comment. The newspapers job is to deliver the news, and that the more interesting and intruiging news will get the most attention.
What Kristen said... was awesome.
I agree with what kirsten is saying, she makes a very good point.
I disagree with some of the comments saying that it gives candidates unfair advantages over others. Its pointless to print news about a candidate if no one wants to read it, plus, journalists arnt being paid to be fair.
Getting back to the original subject matter I think that if Obama is the most popular candidate then newspapers would be stupid to not post more articles about him. Newspapers are a business and they are just playing to their audience.
pork·chop
–noun 1. a chop of pork.
Exerp for dictionary.com.
I noticed your signoff was "Porkchop" and at first i was confused, than i realized, yes, you are a porkchop, you, your writting, and your concept of the topic in which we are discussing.
A good journalist reports the facts, tells a story interpting information to a general diverse audience. Now if you want a career writting for the National Inquiry, report in the way you stated in your previous comment, but you want to be a real journalist, report the facts.
Post a Comment