Number of text messages sent and received TUESDAY, November 26: 55
Number of text messages sent and received WEDNESDAY, November 27: 117
Number of text messages sent and received THURSDAY, November 28: 146
Friday, November 29, 2013
Day 10
It's the last day of my media analysis project! So, here's an article from the New York Times, one of the most widely read daily papers in America.
"Official Quits in Backlash on Gun Vote in Colorado." Jack Healy, New York Times. November 28, 2013
This article is about a state senator in Colorado who resigned after anti-gun control voters threatened to hold a recall vote to strip her of her seat because she voted for and sponsored gun control laws. It is slightly longer than one page long (it is a column on the side of the page). It contains lots of pertinent background information that helps me to understand the article. There are seven quotations in the article: one from the senator, Ms. Hudak, and one from a Democratic supporter, three slightly shorter quotes from Republican opponents of Ms. Hudak, and two quotes from neutral political experts. This distribution shows a fairly balanced view of the matter; however, much of the first half concerns the struggles Democrats have faced in the swing state of Colorado. Nevertheless, I think the article does a fine job of staying neutral and reporting objectively on these issues.
I appreciated that this article contained a lot of background information and explained the sometimes complicated process of recall voting clearly. Also, the addition of quotations from neutral experts is something that I have not noticed in any other newspaper articles (although it was a major part of the PBS News Hour show that I watched). Although the article was objective and contained information on the opposition to Ms. Hudak, I would also have appreciated more information on other reasons (besides gun gun control) that many voters were opposed to Ms. Hudak's policies. All in all, I appreciated this article because it provided a viewpoint into important events in another state. I often don't know what is happening in other states because I read the Massachusetts newspapers most often. I recommend this article to readers who are interested in events in each state or who would like to follow partisan politics.
"Official Quits in Backlash on Gun Vote in Colorado." Jack Healy, New York Times. November 28, 2013
This article is about a state senator in Colorado who resigned after anti-gun control voters threatened to hold a recall vote to strip her of her seat because she voted for and sponsored gun control laws. It is slightly longer than one page long (it is a column on the side of the page). It contains lots of pertinent background information that helps me to understand the article. There are seven quotations in the article: one from the senator, Ms. Hudak, and one from a Democratic supporter, three slightly shorter quotes from Republican opponents of Ms. Hudak, and two quotes from neutral political experts. This distribution shows a fairly balanced view of the matter; however, much of the first half concerns the struggles Democrats have faced in the swing state of Colorado. Nevertheless, I think the article does a fine job of staying neutral and reporting objectively on these issues.
I appreciated that this article contained a lot of background information and explained the sometimes complicated process of recall voting clearly. Also, the addition of quotations from neutral experts is something that I have not noticed in any other newspaper articles (although it was a major part of the PBS News Hour show that I watched). Although the article was objective and contained information on the opposition to Ms. Hudak, I would also have appreciated more information on other reasons (besides gun gun control) that many voters were opposed to Ms. Hudak's policies. All in all, I appreciated this article because it provided a viewpoint into important events in another state. I often don't know what is happening in other states because I read the Massachusetts newspapers most often. I recommend this article to readers who are interested in events in each state or who would like to follow partisan politics.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Day 9
Happy Thanksgiving! We're eating our Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow, thanks to the six-hour drive that delivered us to our destination late this evening. Up for analysis today is a Wall Street Journal article that was one of the few government articles I could find unlocked on their website. There was, of course, a plethora of unlocked articles on Black Friday shopping - but that's American consumerism at its best, with no government involvement! The article I found here is another article about the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.
"Health Website Deadline Nears." Wall Street Journal online. Colleen McCain Nelson, November 26, 2013
This newspaper article found online concerns the deadline, set for this Saturday, that the Obama administration put in place for the Healthcare.gov exchange to work better for "the majority of people who are using it." The article is about three-and-a-half laptop screens long. It contains some background information about the history of the deadline that the administration set but does not contain information on the Affordable Care Act itself or on the specific problems Healthcare.gov has faced. Readers who have not been following the rollout of the Affordable Care Act would have no context reading this article. There are quotations from seven different people in this article. Five are Democrats or Obama administration officials, while two are Republicans opposed to the Affordable Care Act. This would seem to suggest a liberal bias in the article; however, the article itself presents a balanced view of the issue, calling to attention the discrepancies and vagueness in the White House's promises regarding the fixing of Healthcare.gov. The model of media of this article is objective reporting.
I see this article as more of an update for those who have been following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act than as an informative article on the act. I read it within the context of all I already know about the act; however, those who have not been following the issue closely would probably be confused. I would have also liked to see more specific information on the problems the Act has faced, as well as the White House's proposed solutions to these problems. Nevertheless, the article contained important information on the Obama administration's promises about fixing the website. It also seemed fairly objective, which is a plus for any article concerning a controversial topic like the Affordable Care Act. The Wall Street Journal is usually seen as a reliable source. This article was interesting and was a quick and easy-to-follow update on the healthcare issue; however, readers unfamiliar with the issue should look for articles with more information on the act itself.
"Health Website Deadline Nears." Wall Street Journal online. Colleen McCain Nelson, November 26, 2013
This newspaper article found online concerns the deadline, set for this Saturday, that the Obama administration put in place for the Healthcare.gov exchange to work better for "the majority of people who are using it." The article is about three-and-a-half laptop screens long. It contains some background information about the history of the deadline that the administration set but does not contain information on the Affordable Care Act itself or on the specific problems Healthcare.gov has faced. Readers who have not been following the rollout of the Affordable Care Act would have no context reading this article. There are quotations from seven different people in this article. Five are Democrats or Obama administration officials, while two are Republicans opposed to the Affordable Care Act. This would seem to suggest a liberal bias in the article; however, the article itself presents a balanced view of the issue, calling to attention the discrepancies and vagueness in the White House's promises regarding the fixing of Healthcare.gov. The model of media of this article is objective reporting.
I see this article as more of an update for those who have been following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act than as an informative article on the act. I read it within the context of all I already know about the act; however, those who have not been following the issue closely would probably be confused. I would have also liked to see more specific information on the problems the Act has faced, as well as the White House's proposed solutions to these problems. Nevertheless, the article contained important information on the Obama administration's promises about fixing the website. It also seemed fairly objective, which is a plus for any article concerning a controversial topic like the Affordable Care Act. The Wall Street Journal is usually seen as a reliable source. This article was interesting and was a quick and easy-to-follow update on the healthcare issue; however, readers unfamiliar with the issue should look for articles with more information on the act itself.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Day 8
Today it's off to the Metro! The Metro is the most widely-read print newspaper in the United States. This is almost certainly due to the fact that it is free, handed out at subway stations and other public places and frequently found hanging around the locker room of my school gym. I have here the Boston edition. There were no articles pertaining to national government issues in today's edition, but as I'm leaving tomorrow on break for a place where there are no subway stations, it's my last chance to blog about an article in this paper. I chose one about the Boston Police Department.
"Report: $11 Minimum Wage in Massachusetts Would Cost $1.16 Billion by 2016." Metro, November 27, 2013. Morgan Rousseau.
This article is about the proposed minimum wage increase in Massachusetts, some potential effects of the increase, and some arguments for and against the increase. It is about two-and-a-quarter laptop screens long. It includes some background information on the bill and statistical estimates on the effects of the bill, such as the number of people reached and total increase in wages; however, the statistics are somewhat unclear - for instance, although it says that the wage increase would cost $201 million by 2014, it does not specify to whom this would be a cost. This article is an example of objective reporting. There are 3 extensive quotations: one from a business leader opposed to a minimum wage increase, one from a pro-increase state senator, and one from a state senator with moderate views who thinks minimum wage increases should be weighed with the potential effects on businesses. This shows a fairly balanced, objective viewpoint towards the issue.
Although this article is somewhat vague on how exactly workers would be affected by the minimum wage bill (despite making statements such as "less than 10 percent of the workforce in communities like Newton, Brookline, Needham and Wellesley would be affected by a minimum wage hike"), it was an effective summary of the minimum wage bill now up for debate in the Massachusetts legislature. It was objective and did not seem to lean towards a particular side of the debate. However, reading it, I felt as though the author was not highly informed on the subject. Half of the article was made up of numerical statistics that seemed directly taken from a report (significantly, the source of the report was unspecified, which casts its validity into question), and the other half was made up of long quotes from opinionators on the bill. Usually, the Metro is not a very informative source, and personally, I often feel dumber after reading it. It is significant that I could not find any national news articles directly from Metro reporters on the website, and had to use this one from Massachusetts. This article was more informative than most; however, I would encourage readers to seek more in-depth information on this minimum wage bill if they wish to know more about it.
"Report: $11 Minimum Wage in Massachusetts Would Cost $1.16 Billion by 2016." Metro, November 27, 2013. Morgan Rousseau.
This article is about the proposed minimum wage increase in Massachusetts, some potential effects of the increase, and some arguments for and against the increase. It is about two-and-a-quarter laptop screens long. It includes some background information on the bill and statistical estimates on the effects of the bill, such as the number of people reached and total increase in wages; however, the statistics are somewhat unclear - for instance, although it says that the wage increase would cost $201 million by 2014, it does not specify to whom this would be a cost. This article is an example of objective reporting. There are 3 extensive quotations: one from a business leader opposed to a minimum wage increase, one from a pro-increase state senator, and one from a state senator with moderate views who thinks minimum wage increases should be weighed with the potential effects on businesses. This shows a fairly balanced, objective viewpoint towards the issue.
Although this article is somewhat vague on how exactly workers would be affected by the minimum wage bill (despite making statements such as "less than 10 percent of the workforce in communities like Newton, Brookline, Needham and Wellesley would be affected by a minimum wage hike"), it was an effective summary of the minimum wage bill now up for debate in the Massachusetts legislature. It was objective and did not seem to lean towards a particular side of the debate. However, reading it, I felt as though the author was not highly informed on the subject. Half of the article was made up of numerical statistics that seemed directly taken from a report (significantly, the source of the report was unspecified, which casts its validity into question), and the other half was made up of long quotes from opinionators on the bill. Usually, the Metro is not a very informative source, and personally, I often feel dumber after reading it. It is significant that I could not find any national news articles directly from Metro reporters on the website, and had to use this one from Massachusetts. This article was more informative than most; however, I would encourage readers to seek more in-depth information on this minimum wage bill if they wish to know more about it.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Day 7
Tonight I stayed with TV news, but went national with the PBS News Hour. I watched a half-hour segment of the show. It was a very different experience from last night's local news. Here we go:
PBS News Hour at 6:00 PM
I watched a half hour of this hour-long national news show. The broadcast contained far more information than last night's local broadcast. At 6:00, when I started watching, there was a 2-minute segment on the large storm affecting many parts of the nation. This was followed by a short, 5-minute summary of some important current events topics, which included an upcoming Supreme Court case on the Affordable Care Act; a potential conflict between China and Japan; and the US/Afghanistan talks, as well as some others. In the remaining time that I watched, 3 stories were covered in depth. The first was a 3-minute segment on the potential China/Japan conflict, the second was a 10-minute segment on the issue of illegal immigration and deportation under the Obama administration, and the third was a 9-minute segment on the conflict on Syria. All of these topics were covered in depth, with extensive background information. The news format consisted of the news anchors providing background information and updates on the issues, then interviewing experts on the issues. In total, the broadcast included extensive quotations from 8-10 experts, as well as 3-5 film clips from those involved in the issues (such as President Obama and the leader of the Free Syrian Army). The interview with a Wall Street Journal journalist about the China/Japan conflict was objective, and the coverage of Syria included speakers for and against US involvement in Syria; however, when immigration was covered, the only speakers were a law expert with moderate views on the immigration debate and a pro-immigration member of the National Immigration Law Center. This suggests a liberal bias. The show, however, is an example of objective reporting and presented a balanced view of most topics.
The PBS News Hour was far more informative than WBZ Evening News. Unlike the local news, this show was very dense with information, only interspersed with quick slides of online news media and PBS programs between the introduction of topics. Instead of passively absorbing the news, I had to focus to keep up with and comprehend all the information. The interviewers' questions were thoughtful and they also seemed well-informed about the issues. Overall, the tone was much more serious than the WBZ News; there was no music, no banter between news anchors, and no flashy graphics; visual content was restricted to footage and images relating to the topics. This news coverage is clearly aimed at a more educated viewership; the language is fairly intellectual and there is no hint of news-as-entertainment. Although I occasionally had trouble following the broadcast and understanding the issues, I think I would get used to it if I frequently watched this show. The PBS News Hour was highly informative and I would strongly recommend it to viewers looking for a serious TV news program. However, I would also supplement viewership of this show with additional research of the topics and issues; I detected a liberal bent in the discussion of US government issues and viewers should seek arguments for the other side of the issue if they feel that there is a pronounced ideological bent in a media source.
PBS News Hour at 6:00 PM
I watched a half hour of this hour-long national news show. The broadcast contained far more information than last night's local broadcast. At 6:00, when I started watching, there was a 2-minute segment on the large storm affecting many parts of the nation. This was followed by a short, 5-minute summary of some important current events topics, which included an upcoming Supreme Court case on the Affordable Care Act; a potential conflict between China and Japan; and the US/Afghanistan talks, as well as some others. In the remaining time that I watched, 3 stories were covered in depth. The first was a 3-minute segment on the potential China/Japan conflict, the second was a 10-minute segment on the issue of illegal immigration and deportation under the Obama administration, and the third was a 9-minute segment on the conflict on Syria. All of these topics were covered in depth, with extensive background information. The news format consisted of the news anchors providing background information and updates on the issues, then interviewing experts on the issues. In total, the broadcast included extensive quotations from 8-10 experts, as well as 3-5 film clips from those involved in the issues (such as President Obama and the leader of the Free Syrian Army). The interview with a Wall Street Journal journalist about the China/Japan conflict was objective, and the coverage of Syria included speakers for and against US involvement in Syria; however, when immigration was covered, the only speakers were a law expert with moderate views on the immigration debate and a pro-immigration member of the National Immigration Law Center. This suggests a liberal bias. The show, however, is an example of objective reporting and presented a balanced view of most topics.
The PBS News Hour was far more informative than WBZ Evening News. Unlike the local news, this show was very dense with information, only interspersed with quick slides of online news media and PBS programs between the introduction of topics. Instead of passively absorbing the news, I had to focus to keep up with and comprehend all the information. The interviewers' questions were thoughtful and they also seemed well-informed about the issues. Overall, the tone was much more serious than the WBZ News; there was no music, no banter between news anchors, and no flashy graphics; visual content was restricted to footage and images relating to the topics. This news coverage is clearly aimed at a more educated viewership; the language is fairly intellectual and there is no hint of news-as-entertainment. Although I occasionally had trouble following the broadcast and understanding the issues, I think I would get used to it if I frequently watched this show. The PBS News Hour was highly informative and I would strongly recommend it to viewers looking for a serious TV news program. However, I would also supplement viewership of this show with additional research of the topics and issues; I detected a liberal bent in the discussion of US government issues and viewers should seek arguments for the other side of the issue if they feel that there is a pronounced ideological bent in a media source.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Day 6
Today I turned on my TV for the local news at 10, which was an interesting experience because I don't think I've ever watched a full local TV news broadcast!
WBZ News at 10 (Eastern Massachusetts)
This local news broadcast lasted half an hour and was broken up into small segments of different news stories. The stories concerned various local issues (only a few topics were national stories) and were all very short; the longest segments concerned a national weather front and how it would affect holiday travel. There was one five-minute and one four-minute segment on weather. Other topics included the investigation of last year's Newtown shootings (2 minutes), possible prosecutions on a meningitis outbreak earlier this year that may have been caused by a Massachusetts firm (1 minute), an accusation of inappropriate conduct of a mall Santa towards a co-worker (2 minutes), and the short holiday shopping season (1 minute). The broadcast also included a local sports update and a handful of less-than-one-minute features, and contained three commercials breaks of 2-3 minutes. Given their short duration, none of the topics were covered in depth, and contained only minimal background information. The only topics that seemed to be of any long-term significance were the Newtown investigation and the meningitis outbreak (although the weather front may more directly affect watchers' lives). About 15 speakers were quoted, though most of these were short interviews with people on the street who gave their opinions or feelings on the local topics. The Michigan attorney general was quoted on the meningitis outbreak, as were two or three local police officers on some other topics. This broadcast was an example of objective reporting, although the news was somewhat sensationalized with dramatic language and footage. This sometimes led to a one-sided view of issues. Also, I noticed that one of the commercials promoting the next day's coverage of the fishing industry issue was extremely one-sided, portraying federal regulations as destructive to the fishing industry with no positive impact. However, I would have to watch that broadcast to find out whether that feature is biased or not.
I did not feel that this news source was real, solid news. It frequently seemed like entertainment rather than news; for instance, the broadcast included a story on searching for holiday sales and another one on the most productive day of the week, on average. Some of the topics (such as the drunken state trooper crashing a car into a police cruiser) seemed irrelevant. There was no coverage of national politics or international affairs. In addition, the coverage of the selected topics was very shallow. After I watched the broadcast, I felt as though my brain were stuffed with noise. The show contained a lot of moving, flashy graphics, fast talking, and laughter; it did not have a serious aura. I would recommend this kind of show to viewers who are interested to know some of the events that are occurring around their community; it is certainly not ideal for those wishing to become better informed in general.
WBZ News at 10 (Eastern Massachusetts)
This local news broadcast lasted half an hour and was broken up into small segments of different news stories. The stories concerned various local issues (only a few topics were national stories) and were all very short; the longest segments concerned a national weather front and how it would affect holiday travel. There was one five-minute and one four-minute segment on weather. Other topics included the investigation of last year's Newtown shootings (2 minutes), possible prosecutions on a meningitis outbreak earlier this year that may have been caused by a Massachusetts firm (1 minute), an accusation of inappropriate conduct of a mall Santa towards a co-worker (2 minutes), and the short holiday shopping season (1 minute). The broadcast also included a local sports update and a handful of less-than-one-minute features, and contained three commercials breaks of 2-3 minutes. Given their short duration, none of the topics were covered in depth, and contained only minimal background information. The only topics that seemed to be of any long-term significance were the Newtown investigation and the meningitis outbreak (although the weather front may more directly affect watchers' lives). About 15 speakers were quoted, though most of these were short interviews with people on the street who gave their opinions or feelings on the local topics. The Michigan attorney general was quoted on the meningitis outbreak, as were two or three local police officers on some other topics. This broadcast was an example of objective reporting, although the news was somewhat sensationalized with dramatic language and footage. This sometimes led to a one-sided view of issues. Also, I noticed that one of the commercials promoting the next day's coverage of the fishing industry issue was extremely one-sided, portraying federal regulations as destructive to the fishing industry with no positive impact. However, I would have to watch that broadcast to find out whether that feature is biased or not.
I did not feel that this news source was real, solid news. It frequently seemed like entertainment rather than news; for instance, the broadcast included a story on searching for holiday sales and another one on the most productive day of the week, on average. Some of the topics (such as the drunken state trooper crashing a car into a police cruiser) seemed irrelevant. There was no coverage of national politics or international affairs. In addition, the coverage of the selected topics was very shallow. After I watched the broadcast, I felt as though my brain were stuffed with noise. The show contained a lot of moving, flashy graphics, fast talking, and laughter; it did not have a serious aura. I would recommend this kind of show to viewers who are interested to know some of the events that are occurring around their community; it is certainly not ideal for those wishing to become better informed in general.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Day 5
It's been a busy weekend, but here's an analysis from online news source The Drudge Report! I found out this is actually a sort of news-gathering site with links to many different news articles on different websites. The article I chose linked to a site called My Way News.
"Iran Nuclear Deal Fuels Anger, Jitters in Mideast," Josef Federman, My Way News (through Drudge Report). November 24, 2013
This article is about the recent diplomatic agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program. It was linked to in an online news blog and comes from online news source My Way News. It is about 2 screens long. There is limited background information on Iran's previous nuclear activities, though the article did provide a few sentences on Iran's reasoning for implementing a nuclear program. There is also limited background information on the reasons that some nations oppose or support the deal. More information on the exact nuclear activities Iran has been carrying out, the purpose of these activities, and the pro and con arguments for these activities would have been helpful to understand the article more fully. The article quoted seven to nine world leaders on the issue. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes the deal with Iran, is quoted most extensively, and Israeli President Shimon Peres (also in opposition to the deal) is also quoted in detail. However, the short quotes from world leaders who welcomed the deal are more numerous. I think this shows a fairly balanced view of the issue. This piece is an example of objective reporting; I did not detect a bias in the article.
I found this article to be informative while also clear and easy to read. It gives a basic outline of the deal that was reached and summarizes the reactions of varying world powers, both in the Middle East region and around the world. It did not, however, contain information on US involvement or opinion on the deal, which is important information for Americans to know. I felt that the author should have included more background information on Iran's nuclear program itself and the deal-making process. Also, while both sides of the issue were represented in the quotations, it would probably present a more multifaceted viewpoint if the author quoted statements in opposition to the deal from a power other than Israel. Overall, this article is a good introduction to those who have not been closely following the process of talks in Iran, and does the job of informing the reader up to a basic level. For deeper and more detailed information, readers should also seek out other sources.
"Iran Nuclear Deal Fuels Anger, Jitters in Mideast," Josef Federman, My Way News (through Drudge Report). November 24, 2013
This article is about the recent diplomatic agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program. It was linked to in an online news blog and comes from online news source My Way News. It is about 2 screens long. There is limited background information on Iran's previous nuclear activities, though the article did provide a few sentences on Iran's reasoning for implementing a nuclear program. There is also limited background information on the reasons that some nations oppose or support the deal. More information on the exact nuclear activities Iran has been carrying out, the purpose of these activities, and the pro and con arguments for these activities would have been helpful to understand the article more fully. The article quoted seven to nine world leaders on the issue. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes the deal with Iran, is quoted most extensively, and Israeli President Shimon Peres (also in opposition to the deal) is also quoted in detail. However, the short quotes from world leaders who welcomed the deal are more numerous. I think this shows a fairly balanced view of the issue. This piece is an example of objective reporting; I did not detect a bias in the article.
I found this article to be informative while also clear and easy to read. It gives a basic outline of the deal that was reached and summarizes the reactions of varying world powers, both in the Middle East region and around the world. It did not, however, contain information on US involvement or opinion on the deal, which is important information for Americans to know. I felt that the author should have included more background information on Iran's nuclear program itself and the deal-making process. Also, while both sides of the issue were represented in the quotations, it would probably present a more multifaceted viewpoint if the author quoted statements in opposition to the deal from a power other than Israel. Overall, this article is a good introduction to those who have not been closely following the process of talks in Iran, and does the job of informing the reader up to a basic level. For deeper and more detailed information, readers should also seek out other sources.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Day 4
As promised, I listened to some conservative-leaning talk radio today. Actually, it wasn't so much leaning as screaming a conservative bias. I attempted to listen to Rush Limbaugh, but unfortunately you can't listen to his shows or podcasts on his website unless you pay. So, I went with Michael Savage's "The Savage Nation," and I listened to the first segment of his show from yesterday.
"The Savage Nation," November 20, 2013. Michael Savage
SOME QUOTATIONS CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE
This source was a 26-minute excerpt from Michael Savage's daily radio talk show. In it, he discussed the most recent recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an honor for American civilians. He stated his opinions on these recipients and named those whom he would have liked to see receive the award. Savage disagreed with President Obama on who should have received the award and said that he would have given the award to a group of military servicemen killed in action in 2011. Savage gave historical background on the award and included clips of Obama speaking at the awards ceremony, which contained background information on some of the awards recipients. The excerpt contained about four clips of Obama's speech and one quotation from Gloria Steinem. However, Savage punctuated the clips throughout with interjections of his opinions on the president's words. It is difficult to determine the model of media represented here. Although his one-sided view of the issue may represent propaganda, I am more inclined to call this excerpt an example of profit-seeking media because Savage is paid to express these views on national radio. There is a strong conservative bias in this excerpt. Savage speaks very strongly against liberals, calling Obama a "left-wing fanatic" and referring to "left-wing radical social engineers." He favors traditional family values, speaking out against Gloria Steinem's feminist ideas and what he sees as the feminization of boys through the TV show Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. He also notes that there were few straight, white, Christian males on the list of awards recipients. Michael Savage uses this source to express his very conservative views; he is not an objective observer.
I thought this source was shockingly aggressive. It was as biased as the Rolling Stone article I read a few days ago, but many of Savage's comments were insulting or outright offensive; for instance, he calls Obama "a psychopath" in addition to "a left-wing fanatic" and accusing him of having a "radical Leninist agenda." He used terms that could be construed as racist, referring to terrorist threats as "fifteenth-century raghead throwbacks" and "prevalent Islamic threats," and speaking of "black thugs...targeting people of other races." Most offensively, he says of feminist leader Gloria Steinem, "She is a dirty, low-down slut, she's a filthy slut," apparently because he believes "she destroyed womanhood in America." I take issue with Savage's delivery of his opinions not only because he delivers them angrily and insultingly, but because he does not explain why he believes his opinions are correct or provide any evidence to back them up. He simply rages about all the aspects of American society he believes are harmful, relying more on bluster than on fact. In addition, he was very repetitive, complaining again and again about the Medal of Freedom recipients and whom the award should have gone to; however, this can probably be partially attributed to the radio format, in which hosts must compensate for listeners tuning it at different times. I did appreciate, however, that he read the names of the deceased servicemen at the end of the segment. I feel that many Americans share Savage's views, though possibly to a lesser extent; he could probably be more persuasive if he presented his opinions in a more rational way. This source is highly narrowcasted towards those with strong conservative views. It presents only a narrow viewpoint of current events and is not very informative - it is certainly not an adequate source for those wishing to become more informed about current events and American government. For me, it was more of a learning experience about different opinions in America.
So far I've read a couple of sources that attack or implicitly attack conservatives and one that attacks liberals. I find myself wondering why we can't all just get along!
"The Savage Nation," November 20, 2013. Michael Savage
SOME QUOTATIONS CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE
This source was a 26-minute excerpt from Michael Savage's daily radio talk show. In it, he discussed the most recent recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an honor for American civilians. He stated his opinions on these recipients and named those whom he would have liked to see receive the award. Savage disagreed with President Obama on who should have received the award and said that he would have given the award to a group of military servicemen killed in action in 2011. Savage gave historical background on the award and included clips of Obama speaking at the awards ceremony, which contained background information on some of the awards recipients. The excerpt contained about four clips of Obama's speech and one quotation from Gloria Steinem. However, Savage punctuated the clips throughout with interjections of his opinions on the president's words. It is difficult to determine the model of media represented here. Although his one-sided view of the issue may represent propaganda, I am more inclined to call this excerpt an example of profit-seeking media because Savage is paid to express these views on national radio. There is a strong conservative bias in this excerpt. Savage speaks very strongly against liberals, calling Obama a "left-wing fanatic" and referring to "left-wing radical social engineers." He favors traditional family values, speaking out against Gloria Steinem's feminist ideas and what he sees as the feminization of boys through the TV show Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. He also notes that there were few straight, white, Christian males on the list of awards recipients. Michael Savage uses this source to express his very conservative views; he is not an objective observer.
I thought this source was shockingly aggressive. It was as biased as the Rolling Stone article I read a few days ago, but many of Savage's comments were insulting or outright offensive; for instance, he calls Obama "a psychopath" in addition to "a left-wing fanatic" and accusing him of having a "radical Leninist agenda." He used terms that could be construed as racist, referring to terrorist threats as "fifteenth-century raghead throwbacks" and "prevalent Islamic threats," and speaking of "black thugs...targeting people of other races." Most offensively, he says of feminist leader Gloria Steinem, "She is a dirty, low-down slut, she's a filthy slut," apparently because he believes "she destroyed womanhood in America." I take issue with Savage's delivery of his opinions not only because he delivers them angrily and insultingly, but because he does not explain why he believes his opinions are correct or provide any evidence to back them up. He simply rages about all the aspects of American society he believes are harmful, relying more on bluster than on fact. In addition, he was very repetitive, complaining again and again about the Medal of Freedom recipients and whom the award should have gone to; however, this can probably be partially attributed to the radio format, in which hosts must compensate for listeners tuning it at different times. I did appreciate, however, that he read the names of the deceased servicemen at the end of the segment. I feel that many Americans share Savage's views, though possibly to a lesser extent; he could probably be more persuasive if he presented his opinions in a more rational way. This source is highly narrowcasted towards those with strong conservative views. It presents only a narrow viewpoint of current events and is not very informative - it is certainly not an adequate source for those wishing to become more informed about current events and American government. For me, it was more of a learning experience about different opinions in America.
So far I've read a couple of sources that attack or implicitly attack conservatives and one that attacks liberals. I find myself wondering why we can't all just get along!
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Day 3
It's Day 3 of of the media analysis project, and I'm heading to the newspaper. Since my parents don't get a newspaper every day, this might be a rare chance - I'm hoping they'll bring home a New York Times sometime this weekend. The newspaper I'm using is The Boston Globe, but the article is from wire service The Associated Press. Here goes:
"High Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law." Mark Sherman, Associated Press (Boston Globe). November 20, 2013
This article is about the recent Supreme Court ruling on Texas's new abortion laws, passed in July. It is about a third of a newspaper page long. The article contains some background information on the abortion laws and the challenges some groups have posed to the law in court, but the background info is somewhat confusing. The article is seemingly about a single provision of the abortion law (one that requires abortion doctors who work in clinics to have admitting privileges at hospitals), but this fact is not emphasized and the first time I read it through, I was under the impression that the court had conducted a trial on the entire law. The description of how the law was challenged was also somewhat convoluted. Additional information about the rest of the law and clearer language on the legal challenges would be helpful to readers. The article includes seven to nine direct and indirect quotations. More than half, however, are from leaders of the opposition to the abortion law, and these quotes are the longest and most detailed. This suggests a bias towards the opposition to the abortion law, most of whom are Democrats or liberals. The article, however, is an example of objective reporting; there is no pronounced bias in the way the information is delivered.
After yesterday's article, it was a relief to read this more moderate, objective article - though I was disappointed that the main quotes were from liberal sources. Rick Perry, the governor of Texas who signed the law, was only briefly quoted. To present a more objective view, the author of the article should have included information on the background of the law and its intended purpose. The format of the article was a bit confusing - I had to read it several times to understand the process of appeals the provision went through and the results of the law. However, the article contained valuable, solid information. This is certainly a valid and mostly objective source, although I would recommend that readers seek out one or two other sources about the Texas law in order to find out more about the purpose of the law and its background, especially since this article concerns only one provision of the law.
All the sources I have chosen so far have been biased towards a liberal viewpoint - I was hoping today's article would be more moderate. Tomorrow, on to conservative talk radio!
"High Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law." Mark Sherman, Associated Press (Boston Globe). November 20, 2013
This article is about the recent Supreme Court ruling on Texas's new abortion laws, passed in July. It is about a third of a newspaper page long. The article contains some background information on the abortion laws and the challenges some groups have posed to the law in court, but the background info is somewhat confusing. The article is seemingly about a single provision of the abortion law (one that requires abortion doctors who work in clinics to have admitting privileges at hospitals), but this fact is not emphasized and the first time I read it through, I was under the impression that the court had conducted a trial on the entire law. The description of how the law was challenged was also somewhat convoluted. Additional information about the rest of the law and clearer language on the legal challenges would be helpful to readers. The article includes seven to nine direct and indirect quotations. More than half, however, are from leaders of the opposition to the abortion law, and these quotes are the longest and most detailed. This suggests a bias towards the opposition to the abortion law, most of whom are Democrats or liberals. The article, however, is an example of objective reporting; there is no pronounced bias in the way the information is delivered.
After yesterday's article, it was a relief to read this more moderate, objective article - though I was disappointed that the main quotes were from liberal sources. Rick Perry, the governor of Texas who signed the law, was only briefly quoted. To present a more objective view, the author of the article should have included information on the background of the law and its intended purpose. The format of the article was a bit confusing - I had to read it several times to understand the process of appeals the provision went through and the results of the law. However, the article contained valuable, solid information. This is certainly a valid and mostly objective source, although I would recommend that readers seek out one or two other sources about the Texas law in order to find out more about the purpose of the law and its background, especially since this article concerns only one provision of the law.
All the sources I have chosen so far have been biased towards a liberal viewpoint - I was hoping today's article would be more moderate. Tomorrow, on to conservative talk radio!
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Day 2
Day 2 of media analysis project! Today I'm looking at an article from Rolling Stone, issues of which are often lying around my house because my mom cashed in some airline points for a free subscription. Many of the articles in this magazine are very provocative, but we'll see where this one takes us:
"The GOP's War on the Poor." Elizabeth Drew, Rolling Stone (Nov. 7, 2013)
This source is a magazine article about Congress's recent action on the national food stamp program. It is about 4.5 pages long. The article contains background information on the history of the food stamp program, which provides aid to families and individuals who may not have enough income to purchase an adequate amount of food, on the basic guidelines of the food stamp program (such as requirements and costs), and on recent legislative actions taken and policies considered concerning the food stamp program. The author has also included many statistics on the food stamp program. The article contains about seven to nine quotations, but the longest and most in-depth quotes are from Democrats and supporters of the food stamp program. Quotes from Republicans, and those who favor cuts to the food stamp program, are short, anecdotal, and do not describe the reasons for their views, but instead are used by the author to support her personal views of these people. Although the article concerns social issues and the author uses the article to become involved in the legislative practice, it is more propaganda than public advocacy because it is not objective and thus attempts to manipulate public opinion by presenting a limited viewpoint of the issue. It de-legitimizes the views of those who support cuts to the food stamp program and favors the views of food stamp supporters. There is a strong bias in this piece, which is not only liberal, but blatantly partisan in favor of the Democrats. The author is openly hostile towards Republicans. The subheading of the article is "Republicans are pushing to decimate food-stamp programs, punishing the most vulnerable just out of sheer spite." Later, the author goes on to say: "Republicans have resisted significant increases in [job] training programs - if this hurts the economy or large numbers of individuals, so be it. First things first: Undermine Obama's presidency." These two quotes dismiss any ideological or policy-related reservations Republicans may have about food stamp programs, instead suggesting that Congressional members of the Republican Party pettily and selfishly roadblock President Obama's policies. She also refers to the Southerland Amendment, which is a part of the new food stamp bill that applies federal welfare work requirements to the food stamp program and allows states to reclaim half of the money saved if residents stop using food stamps, as "bribery." As a whole, although this article contains interesting historical background on food stamps and some pertinent statistics on the current food stamp program, it is so biased that readers should not view it as an informative source.
My impression of this source is that it is nearly worthless to those seeking to obtain a balanced perspective on the issue of food stamps. It is so blatantly prejudiced and biased towards the Democrats that I believe it is more an example of propaganda than public advocacy, since it makes no attempts at objectivity and contains little to no discussion of the possible drawbacks and problems of the food stamp program. The article is highly narrowcasted towards those with Democratic, liberal, or moralist views. In fact, I think it is even dangerous because of the impetuous tone it takes towards Republican and conservative views on the food stamp issue; the author presents her opinions as though they were fact and they may seem reasonable to the uninformed. This seems very manipulative. The article is well researched in terms of facts and dates, but its obvious partisanship makes me wonder about other, concealed facets of this issue that may not show the author's opinions in a good light. In fact, I had to look up the Southerland Amendment in other sources, because I knew I could not present an objective view of its purpose when the author only provided such a limited, accusatory stance on it. To those who support cuts to the food stamp program, this article will be infuriating because the author takes such a sardonic attitude towards their views. To those who oppose cuts to the food stamp program, this article will be uncomfortable to read because it will feel like an illegitimate and unfair presentation of their views. No matter a reader's viewpoint, this article should be taken with a grain of salt about the size of the Taj Mahal.
"The GOP's War on the Poor." Elizabeth Drew, Rolling Stone (Nov. 7, 2013)
This source is a magazine article about Congress's recent action on the national food stamp program. It is about 4.5 pages long. The article contains background information on the history of the food stamp program, which provides aid to families and individuals who may not have enough income to purchase an adequate amount of food, on the basic guidelines of the food stamp program (such as requirements and costs), and on recent legislative actions taken and policies considered concerning the food stamp program. The author has also included many statistics on the food stamp program. The article contains about seven to nine quotations, but the longest and most in-depth quotes are from Democrats and supporters of the food stamp program. Quotes from Republicans, and those who favor cuts to the food stamp program, are short, anecdotal, and do not describe the reasons for their views, but instead are used by the author to support her personal views of these people. Although the article concerns social issues and the author uses the article to become involved in the legislative practice, it is more propaganda than public advocacy because it is not objective and thus attempts to manipulate public opinion by presenting a limited viewpoint of the issue. It de-legitimizes the views of those who support cuts to the food stamp program and favors the views of food stamp supporters. There is a strong bias in this piece, which is not only liberal, but blatantly partisan in favor of the Democrats. The author is openly hostile towards Republicans. The subheading of the article is "Republicans are pushing to decimate food-stamp programs, punishing the most vulnerable just out of sheer spite." Later, the author goes on to say: "Republicans have resisted significant increases in [job] training programs - if this hurts the economy or large numbers of individuals, so be it. First things first: Undermine Obama's presidency." These two quotes dismiss any ideological or policy-related reservations Republicans may have about food stamp programs, instead suggesting that Congressional members of the Republican Party pettily and selfishly roadblock President Obama's policies. She also refers to the Southerland Amendment, which is a part of the new food stamp bill that applies federal welfare work requirements to the food stamp program and allows states to reclaim half of the money saved if residents stop using food stamps, as "bribery." As a whole, although this article contains interesting historical background on food stamps and some pertinent statistics on the current food stamp program, it is so biased that readers should not view it as an informative source.
My impression of this source is that it is nearly worthless to those seeking to obtain a balanced perspective on the issue of food stamps. It is so blatantly prejudiced and biased towards the Democrats that I believe it is more an example of propaganda than public advocacy, since it makes no attempts at objectivity and contains little to no discussion of the possible drawbacks and problems of the food stamp program. The article is highly narrowcasted towards those with Democratic, liberal, or moralist views. In fact, I think it is even dangerous because of the impetuous tone it takes towards Republican and conservative views on the food stamp issue; the author presents her opinions as though they were fact and they may seem reasonable to the uninformed. This seems very manipulative. The article is well researched in terms of facts and dates, but its obvious partisanship makes me wonder about other, concealed facets of this issue that may not show the author's opinions in a good light. In fact, I had to look up the Southerland Amendment in other sources, because I knew I could not present an objective view of its purpose when the author only provided such a limited, accusatory stance on it. To those who support cuts to the food stamp program, this article will be infuriating because the author takes such a sardonic attitude towards their views. To those who oppose cuts to the food stamp program, this article will be uncomfortable to read because it will feel like an illegitimate and unfair presentation of their views. No matter a reader's viewpoint, this article should be taken with a grain of salt about the size of the Taj Mahal.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Let's get started!
As part of my AP Gov class, I'm embarking on a ten-day media analysis project. To start off with, I'll discuss an article from online newspaper The Huffington Post.
"Nancy Pelosi: Democrats 'Stand Tall' For Obamacare Ahead of 2014 Elections." Sabrina Siddiqui
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/17/nancy-pelosi-democrats-obamacare_n_4292131.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
This article addresses Nancy Pelosi's statements on the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, asserting that Democrats in Congress continue to support the Affordable Care Act and will continue to support it during the 2014 midterm elections. The source is fairly short, about one-and-a-half screens long. It provides limited background information on the difficulties the government has faced in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and some recent attempts at solutions, but does not explain the background or purpose of the act itself. This could lead to confusion towards the middle of the article, where the author discusses the renewal of healthcare plans. Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is the most-quoted speaker in the article, as the article is about her statements on the healthcare issue. Republican Representative Greg Walden is also briefly quoted. Although his status as a Republican (and thus, probably a member of the opposition to the Affordable Care Act) proves that the article provides at least a nominal example of a second perspective on the Affordable Care Act, the lack of varied arguments from this perspective suggests a bias towards Democrat opinions. Additionally, Walden is quoted not with his opinions about the strengths or failures of the Affordable Care Act, but on his view of the potential political fallout of the act. This further represents a limited perspective on the act. This article is an example of objective reporting.
I don't believe this article is an effective or informative source for readers wishing to learn about the Affordable Care Act. It contains little to no background information on the act. Instead, the first two paragraphs contain a list of the Affordable Care Act's faults, and most of the rest of the article contains direct quotes from Nancy Pelosi, although it also includes a short discussion of proposed solutions to the healthcare confusion and a short quote from Republican Greg Walden on the potential political effects of the Affordable Care Act. The article reads more like a summary of Nancy Pelosi's interview on Meet the Press than an objective piece of reporting designed to inform the public. Nancy Pelosi's statements, of course, represent a biased viewpoint towards the Democrats. In addition, most of the quotes the author of the article included sounded like political posturing designed to maintain the most possible influence for Pelosi's party: "You can't be knocked for a loop just because somebody is playing politics," she is quoted as saying, implicitly blaming Republicans for threats to the Affordable Care Act. Later, she continues: "[The] government was shut down because of a whim on the part of the Republicans, costing us $25 billion to our economy and 0.6 percent of our GDP growth." In conclusion, I felt that this article was both minimally informative and politically biased, and thus would encourage readers to seek elsewhere for for solidly educational sources about the Affordable Care Act.
"Nancy Pelosi: Democrats 'Stand Tall' For Obamacare Ahead of 2014 Elections." Sabrina Siddiqui
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/17/nancy-pelosi-democrats-obamacare_n_4292131.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
This article addresses Nancy Pelosi's statements on the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, asserting that Democrats in Congress continue to support the Affordable Care Act and will continue to support it during the 2014 midterm elections. The source is fairly short, about one-and-a-half screens long. It provides limited background information on the difficulties the government has faced in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and some recent attempts at solutions, but does not explain the background or purpose of the act itself. This could lead to confusion towards the middle of the article, where the author discusses the renewal of healthcare plans. Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is the most-quoted speaker in the article, as the article is about her statements on the healthcare issue. Republican Representative Greg Walden is also briefly quoted. Although his status as a Republican (and thus, probably a member of the opposition to the Affordable Care Act) proves that the article provides at least a nominal example of a second perspective on the Affordable Care Act, the lack of varied arguments from this perspective suggests a bias towards Democrat opinions. Additionally, Walden is quoted not with his opinions about the strengths or failures of the Affordable Care Act, but on his view of the potential political fallout of the act. This further represents a limited perspective on the act. This article is an example of objective reporting.
I don't believe this article is an effective or informative source for readers wishing to learn about the Affordable Care Act. It contains little to no background information on the act. Instead, the first two paragraphs contain a list of the Affordable Care Act's faults, and most of the rest of the article contains direct quotes from Nancy Pelosi, although it also includes a short discussion of proposed solutions to the healthcare confusion and a short quote from Republican Greg Walden on the potential political effects of the Affordable Care Act. The article reads more like a summary of Nancy Pelosi's interview on Meet the Press than an objective piece of reporting designed to inform the public. Nancy Pelosi's statements, of course, represent a biased viewpoint towards the Democrats. In addition, most of the quotes the author of the article included sounded like political posturing designed to maintain the most possible influence for Pelosi's party: "You can't be knocked for a loop just because somebody is playing politics," she is quoted as saying, implicitly blaming Republicans for threats to the Affordable Care Act. Later, she continues: "[The] government was shut down because of a whim on the part of the Republicans, costing us $25 billion to our economy and 0.6 percent of our GDP growth." In conclusion, I felt that this article was both minimally informative and politically biased, and thus would encourage readers to seek elsewhere for for solidly educational sources about the Affordable Care Act.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)