Mainstream Media
 |
| PC: https://time.com/4898644/trump-campaign-ad-charlottesville-protest/ |
In class, we are taking a look and analysing the information media can give us and understanding it through the biases, evidence, and opinions that are given. We were given the choice to select an article from a liberal bias, and a conservative bias, and were allowed to select a topic to write about. I chose to write about abortion, as that is a topic I have modest opinions about.
Here is a quick video regarding abortion, and similar topics, as discussed at a Libertarian Party Debate:
Real quick, I chose these two sources because they are on opposite sides of the AllSides bias chart, which tells us if sources are center, left-leaning, or right-leaning.
 |
| PC: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings |
Abortion is an issue regarding whether or not it is okay to kill a baby while it is still in the womb of the mother. The debate is where a person would classify life begins, as some people believe that life begins at conception while others believe that there are a number of weeks where the baby is just a "clump of cells". Questions are also asked about how strict abortion laws should be; should abortion always be illegal or are there exceptions, such as mother's health, incest, or rape? Personally, I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be illegal, with the same exceptions listed in the previous sentence.
 |
| PC: |
Article One:
The first article that I examined can be found here. It was written in 2013 and according to AllSides, Politico is a slightly left-leaning news source. On the topic of abortion, people who identify as left-leaning are usually pro-choice. Right off the bat, I can identify that this article is using bias through photo. The picture is a woman who looks distraught, and is taken out of context. We may think that she feels this way because of the passing of the abortion bill; however, we don't know where this photo comes from, and this photo can just be a random woman who has no relation to the decision made by Texas Legislators.
 |
| PC: https://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/texas-abortion-bill-094108 |
A short summary of this article is that Republicans in Texas Legislature passed one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the US. Two-thousand demonstrators opposed the bill, and Democrats offered twenty amendments that would create exceptions to the bill in times of incest/rape, but Republicans did not accept any of them.
The information about the two-thousand demonstrators who opposed the bill is an example of bias through selection/omission. Bias through selection/omission is including facts and data that only supports your side. The article fails to mention the demonstrators who probably supported the bill, and because of this, makes it seem like the general populous is against the abortion bill. In reality, the percentages of people who are pro-choice or pro-life are very close together, as seen in the figure below. The percentage of pro-life adults seem to be slightly increasing each year, while the opposite is true for the percentage of pro-choice.
 |
| PC: https://news.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx |
The article talks about what happened, but doesn’t give exact or specific evidence, such as listing out the twenty proposed amendments by Democrats. It also doesn’t tell us the exact abortion bill, so we don’t know if the article is lying about the strictness and restrictiveness of it.
This decision is related to the Roe v. Wade decision, which gave women the right to get an abortion before the fetus is out of the womb. Texas is also a conservative state, which can explain why this bill was allowed to pass. It is part of the Bible Belt, and Christian conservatives generally oppose the idea of abortion.
The article’s main goal is to question the decision of passing such a “restrictive” abortion bill that doesn’t even have one amendment offered by democrats, which would have been some form of compromise between the two parties. There are reportedly no exceptions to this bill, so abortion cannot be performed for a woman no matter the circumstance if this bill is put into law.
The article is about how Pennsylvania legislature passed an anti-abortion bill that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, unless the woman’s life is endangered. Eighteen states have either introduced or passed a heartbeat bill. Bills have been passed in Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and Iowa. but none have gone into effect because they have gotten vetoed or struck down in court.
The article includes pieces of interviews done to get their opinions on the bill, such as a senator and a representative. These are first-hand sources as they come directly from the speakers, and are usually deemed reliable. However, we do not have any evidence that shows the speakers actually saying this, so the author of the article can change little words and phrases, which affect the message being portrayed.
Again, Roe v. Wade decision is put into question regarding the legality of giving women the right to abortion, instead of the privilege to it.
The article’s main goal is to bring attention to this topic and the ideas behind the anti-abortion bill. The article references the figures from the state legislature, and that can bring credible evidence into the source. We can also identify a bias through selection/omission. The author chooses a Republican Senate and Representative member, but not a Democrat. This ensures that the other side is not able to refute the claims made by the Republicans.
Article Two:
The second article I looked at came from Fox News, which is a slightly right-leaning news source, according to AllSides. You can find it here. People who are right-leaning are usually pro-life. I can identify that this article uses bias through photo, as for a few seconds, the video thumbnail is a picture of a heart in front of a government building. This is related to their pro-life sentiment, as a heart symbolises life and love. They can claim that if you disagree with the anti-abortion bill, you are killing an innocent life.
 |
| PC: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-republicans-unveil-heartbeat-anti-abortion-bill |
The article is about how Pennsylvania legislature passed an anti-abortion bill that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, unless the woman’s life is endangered. Eighteen states have either introduced or passed a heartbeat bill. Bills have been passed in Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and Iowa. but none have gone into effect because they have gotten vetoed or struck down in court.
 |
| PC: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/states-passing-more-restrictive-lenient-abortion-laws-as-supreme-court-battle-looms |
The article includes pieces of interviews done to get their opinions on the bill, such as a senator and a representative. These are first-hand sources as they come directly from the speakers, and are usually deemed reliable. However, we do not have any evidence that shows the speakers actually saying this, so the author of the article can change little words and phrases, which affect the message being portrayed.
Again, Roe v. Wade decision is put into question regarding the legality of giving women the right to abortion, instead of the privilege to it.
The article’s main goal is to bring attention to this topic and the ideas behind the anti-abortion bill. The article references the figures from the state legislature, and that can bring credible evidence into the source. We can also identify a bias through selection/omission. The author chooses a Republican Senate and Representative member, but not a Democrat. This ensures that the other side is not able to refute the claims made by the Republicans.
Debrief
As we can see, there are always two sides to the coin. You may hear a story being covered by one point of view, but in order to be the most informed citizen as you can be, you should priotise listening to as many sides of the argument as possible. Even just finding two opposing sources instead of just believeing one will make you a better citizen.
Comments
Post a Comment