Media Bias

BY- Phillip Detweiler & Shane Kelly

Article Used - http://billoreilly.com/column?pid=24605

We found that the information contained on this article, regarding John McCain and Sarah Palin was difficult to determine if it was accurate because Bill O'Reilly failed to note any sources, and made almost no quotes, using almost all blind sources. This can be seen for example in this quote, "On the right, some Republicans believe that Palin is simply not smart enough to win a national election and they don't want to have to deal with her again in 2012. So, if she can be marginalized now, that is a good thing for them." O'Reilly is here using his favorite tool of masking his own opinions by saying "some republicans" and introducing a personal bias to his writing, by not using any polls or public opinion data. This quote also illustrates a lack of context, because he is not talking about any specific members of the Republican party, instead he simply makes a broad generalization, when in fact many people in the party disagree with O'Reilly's positions. He backs up his allegations of McCain staffers with his interview with carl cameron, however he does not quote any experts, or opposing opinions to back up his attacks on the alleged liberal media who he claims put a target on Sarah Palin's back. This article helps to reinforce the status quo/stereotype of the mass media having a far-left political agenda as he writes, "the left wing media hammered her during the campaign because the obviously favored Obama." This simply adds more weight to an already lopsided argument on Bill O'Reilly's famously biased journalism.

Steve Kurtz and the dangers of government

The case of Steve Kurtz illustrates how dangerous laws passed during a time of panic can be, because the USA PATRIOT act was signed just over a month after 9/11, and this was a time when america as a whole was scared, and it was a kneejerk reaction to the terrorist attacks, much in the same way that there have been laws passed during almost every major war the US has been involved in that restricted civil liberties. However, the case of Steve Kurtz was a simple matter of the US Government attacking a civilian for something that normally would have been a civil matter between manufacturers of seeds and bacteria cultures, and attempted to redefine it as a criminal act.

The danger of this is quite simply that it gives the american government more surveillance powers and takes away our rights to know about it, almost as if you took J. Edgar Hoover out of the 1950s and the Red Scare, and gave him todays technology and turned him loose. This is stripping away our civil liberties in a way that is very scary, because you cannot trade away privacy and rights for security. In fact, there are 2 quotes from Edward R. Murrow, one of the leading figures of journalism from the 1940's and 50's that resonate with todays situation.

"The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully."

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason"

---Edward R. Murrow's See It Now broadcast, 1954

These quotes, taken from Edward R. Murrow, were from a broadcast during the height of the Red Scare, right before McCarthy's fall from grace as it were, however, with a few changes in wording, it resonates just as well today, and illustrates a government unleashed during a time of public panic as a terrifying genie that may prove impossible to put back in the bottle.

Cult of the Amateur Test

Blog Vs News

There are a lot of similarities between ireport.com and cnn.com, however, the differences are what make them distinct, because CNN.com presents what is supposed to be relatively objective news that is helpful to anyone across the country, and the blogs on ireport are more of a subjective viewpoint, and this can be seen with the blogger including pictures of an obama/biden bumper sticker, or perhaps a mccain/palin one, depending on the viewpoint of the blogger, and the blogs also take on much more of a personal tone, which is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the readers understand the distinction between the two and don't take ireport.com as a news source.

CNN.com for example, is talking about the effects that the currently hotly debated 700 billion dollar government bailout plan will have on the US and global economy whether it is successful or not, whereas the bloggers are writing more out of emotion, and are writing a much more opinionated kind of article, about the possible reprecussions of this bailout, in terms of the average man, and while both can be helpful, it is important to remember that the people at CNN.com are professionals, wheras the blogger on ireport could just as easily be the classmate sitting next to you.

Web 2.0 truth

There are a few different advantages to Web 2.0 technologies, and the biggest of those is that it gives a voice to a large group of people who before the advent of these changes would have never had a chance to have their views heard, as well as allowing political candidates a voice beyond the mass media. For Example, John McCain has openly admitted that he does not use computers, whereas Barack Obama not only e-mails, but there is also a blog maintained by his campaign, which gives them an opportunity to speak directly to people on the internet, because mass media can create a distorted view, especially of particular incidents. This gives a man at a computer an impressive voice, if in fact he is speaking on topics that people are concerned about, and is one of the true benefits of web 2.0, but is also one of the dangers, because with the mass media, there is at least peer review, and an untruth will usually be discredited fairly quickly, as in the instance of Working-Families for Wal Mart, and as long as this kind of expose continues, it may turn these kind of newer technologies into a viable source for news.

Web 2.0 Untruth

The fallacy of Web 2.0 is that while many purport it to be the new wave of information, it has created a dangerous situation on the internet. This is because this "revolution" is putting a more personal, objective kind of face on the same corporate platitudes that have always been spewed by corporate America. One of the more blatant examples of this is the case of "Working Families for Wal-Mart", a group that maintains a blog and a website that is used to praise Wal-Mart's ideals and work conditions, and is a seemingly grass-roots organization. They often fight against union intervention, and when they emerged in 2005, seemed to briefly put a human face on an enormous corporation that is well known for paying low wages and at times defying United States labor laws. The reality of Working Families of Wal-Mart is that they are a group that was created by Edelman Public Relations, a company that is well known for attempting to craft new images for massive companies such as Wal-Mart and Microsoft. The organization is not a non-profit, which means they are not required to disclose funding sources, and this is exactly one of the dangers of Web 2.0, because they created an entirely separate and for a time, distinct entity that was wholly controlled by corporate interests in an attempt at economic propaganda, as well as to undermine attempts by employees to create a workers union, or any attempt at formation of workers groups. This kind of deceit may also be what in the long run is the downfall of Web 2.0, this ability for any person or group to speak to the world in whatever voice they choose.