Blog #4: Current Events and Media Exploration
Hey everyone! It's Kris, and today we will be going over current events and how the media interprets them. More specifically, we will be taking a look at the bombs that have been sent to prominent Democratic officials and how both the New York Times and Fox News view this issue. As a forewarning, the New York Times, according to the Pew Research Center, caters to a consistently liberal audience, while the audience of Fox News tends to be more conservative.
First thing's first: why is this important? The way the media interprets current events is important because it is our primary source of information about local and global issues. The media also provides us with the majority of the information that we receive about politics. In this way, the media can be considered a linkage institution. In other words, the media connects the general public to the government through their flow of information. This is why it is important for us to understand where and how bias exists in the media. The media has the power to twist events and the words of others in order to convey whatever it is they wish.
The NY Times covers the bombing incident in an article titled "Outspoken Trump Supporter in Florida Charged in Attempted Bombing Spree", which was written by William K. Rashbaum, Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman. The article states that Cesar Sayoc Jr., a registered Republican and Trump supporter, sent 14 bombs to 12 of Trump’s Democrat critics. According to the article, Sayoc publicly criticized some Democratic figures, posted on right-wing social media groups, and attended a Trump rally while wearing a MAGA hat. It appears as though Trump does not defend his actions but disapproves of the media’s use of Sayoc’s actions to villainize the Republican Party.
The article is arguably credible in that it was written by three highly qualified men who have spent decades writing about political and criminal issues. The text was also published on a well-known website in a formal tone and with many added quotes and even maps. However, the actual content of the article is extremely biased. The authors frame their argument in a way that attributes Sayoc’s actions to his allegiance to the Republican Party, which they may be doing to villainize Trump and his supporters. The article also shows that tension is high between the two major political parties in the US, as members of a certain party may be resorting to domestic terrorism to provide an advantage to their political party. The biases shown in the article also demonstrate that the authors were quick to pin the crime on the Republican Party as a whole. This is to be expected when the Democratic and Republican parties have such negative views of each other.
If I were not reading this article so critically, I would probably be convinced by the authors’ argument. This is because they use language like “domestic terrorism” to emphasize the danger and fear that should be associated with Democratic leaders’ lives being threatened. As someone who already identified as a Democrat before reading this article, I can definitely understand why this sort of wording would cause one to be suspicious of Republicans or Trump supporters, as this can almost be seen as a declaration of war. In order to strengthen their argument, the authors should refrain from pinning Soyac's crime on the Republican Party. In fact, if the authors could mention Trump only in mentioning Soyac's motive, the article would be much less biased and therefore would be appealing to a broader audience. This would also prevent readers' opinions from being unjustly changed due to a few colorful words from the NY Times.
On the other hand, Fox News's article, titled "Suspect arrested in Florida in connection with suspicious packages sent to Democrats" focuses more on the legal side of the issue. The author, Barnini Chakraborty, writes that evidence collected by officials has led to the arrest of Cesar Sayoc Jr., who sent bombs to prominent Democratic officials. The article states that he now faces five federal charges and up to 48 years in prison. Sayoc has praised Trump on social media, has a history of theft and bomb threats, and owns a van laden with political signage. At the 2018 Young Black Leadership Summit, Trump has allegedly called Sayoc’s actions “despicable” and stated, “We must never allow political violence to take root in America. We cannot let it happen. And I am committed to doing everything in my power as president to stop it. And to stop it now.”
Like the article published in the New York Times, this text was written by an experienced writer for a well-known news source: Fox News. The author uses many quotes and other media from officials and other experts. However, Fox News is notorious for its bias towards more conservative views. In other words, the information provided (or not provided) in this article is likely biased. The article suggests that the American government is making quick work of sorting through the mess that Soyac has created. The author framed her evidence in a way that made it seem as though Soyac was just another criminal who was brought to justice by the FBI. She also only included quotes from Trump that forced him to appear authoritative and concerned about the “political violence” that took place. This causes Trump to seem like a suitable leader for our country.
I find it easier to trust the argument presented in the article after reading quotes from the FBI Director and a former FBI profiler. The author’s use of ethos effectively utilizes the authority associated with the name “FBI” to cause readers to believe in her argument. In order to strengthen her argument, the author should have included more context about the situation, since it seems to focus more on the consequences that Soyac faced than his motives or how something so dangerous managed to slip past the police. In order to remove her bias entirely, she should refrain from including language that paints Trump as a perfect leader. For example, she should not highlight that Trump was at a Young Black Leadership Summit or include only the quotes that make him seem like a powerful leader.
 |
| Maps of the times, locations, and people that the bombs were sent to. Taken from NY Times. |
First thing's first: why is this important? The way the media interprets current events is important because it is our primary source of information about local and global issues. The media also provides us with the majority of the information that we receive about politics. In this way, the media can be considered a linkage institution. In other words, the media connects the general public to the government through their flow of information. This is why it is important for us to understand where and how bias exists in the media. The media has the power to twist events and the words of others in order to convey whatever it is they wish.
The NY Times covers the bombing incident in an article titled "Outspoken Trump Supporter in Florida Charged in Attempted Bombing Spree", which was written by William K. Rashbaum, Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman. The article states that Cesar Sayoc Jr., a registered Republican and Trump supporter, sent 14 bombs to 12 of Trump’s Democrat critics. According to the article, Sayoc publicly criticized some Democratic figures, posted on right-wing social media groups, and attended a Trump rally while wearing a MAGA hat. It appears as though Trump does not defend his actions but disapproves of the media’s use of Sayoc’s actions to villainize the Republican Party.
Video provided by NY Times. Highlights Sayoc's support for Trump.
The article is arguably credible in that it was written by three highly qualified men who have spent decades writing about political and criminal issues. The text was also published on a well-known website in a formal tone and with many added quotes and even maps. However, the actual content of the article is extremely biased. The authors frame their argument in a way that attributes Sayoc’s actions to his allegiance to the Republican Party, which they may be doing to villainize Trump and his supporters. The article also shows that tension is high between the two major political parties in the US, as members of a certain party may be resorting to domestic terrorism to provide an advantage to their political party. The biases shown in the article also demonstrate that the authors were quick to pin the crime on the Republican Party as a whole. This is to be expected when the Democratic and Republican parties have such negative views of each other.
If I were not reading this article so critically, I would probably be convinced by the authors’ argument. This is because they use language like “domestic terrorism” to emphasize the danger and fear that should be associated with Democratic leaders’ lives being threatened. As someone who already identified as a Democrat before reading this article, I can definitely understand why this sort of wording would cause one to be suspicious of Republicans or Trump supporters, as this can almost be seen as a declaration of war. In order to strengthen their argument, the authors should refrain from pinning Soyac's crime on the Republican Party. In fact, if the authors could mention Trump only in mentioning Soyac's motive, the article would be much less biased and therefore would be appealing to a broader audience. This would also prevent readers' opinions from being unjustly changed due to a few colorful words from the NY Times.
On the other hand, Fox News's article, titled "Suspect arrested in Florida in connection with suspicious packages sent to Democrats" focuses more on the legal side of the issue. The author, Barnini Chakraborty, writes that evidence collected by officials has led to the arrest of Cesar Sayoc Jr., who sent bombs to prominent Democratic officials. The article states that he now faces five federal charges and up to 48 years in prison. Sayoc has praised Trump on social media, has a history of theft and bomb threats, and owns a van laden with political signage. At the 2018 Young Black Leadership Summit, Trump has allegedly called Sayoc’s actions “despicable” and stated, “We must never allow political violence to take root in America. We cannot let it happen. And I am committed to doing everything in my power as president to stop it. And to stop it now.”
 |
| Photo provided by Fox News. Notice the clear "Blacks for Trump" sign! |
Like the article published in the New York Times, this text was written by an experienced writer for a well-known news source: Fox News. The author uses many quotes and other media from officials and other experts. However, Fox News is notorious for its bias towards more conservative views. In other words, the information provided (or not provided) in this article is likely biased. The article suggests that the American government is making quick work of sorting through the mess that Soyac has created. The author framed her evidence in a way that made it seem as though Soyac was just another criminal who was brought to justice by the FBI. She also only included quotes from Trump that forced him to appear authoritative and concerned about the “political violence” that took place. This causes Trump to seem like a suitable leader for our country.
I find it easier to trust the argument presented in the article after reading quotes from the FBI Director and a former FBI profiler. The author’s use of ethos effectively utilizes the authority associated with the name “FBI” to cause readers to believe in her argument. In order to strengthen her argument, the author should have included more context about the situation, since it seems to focus more on the consequences that Soyac faced than his motives or how something so dangerous managed to slip past the police. In order to remove her bias entirely, she should refrain from including language that paints Trump as a perfect leader. For example, she should not highlight that Trump was at a Young Black Leadership Summit or include only the quotes that make him seem like a powerful leader.
I'll admit it: I get a majority of my news from social media. I also watch local news while I get ready for school, but I'm not the type of person to independently seek out news. I think that neither the NY Times nor Fox News are credible. Both articles mentioned were practically dripping in biases. However, if I weren't reading these articles as part of an assignment, I would quickly take the side of the NY Times. I don't think that I actually try to understand both sides of an argument; I just take what's given to me and accept it as true. This means that the majority of the information that I consume is biased and tends to be consumed by a liberal audience. I'm okay with that.
Comments
Post a Comment