LoudmouthMormon Posted January 10, 2022 Posted January 10, 2022 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do you make any distinction between straight news reporting, which is purportedly fair and balanced, and opinion pieces? I ask, because bias in the latter would be obvious and would be expected; it is, after all, opinion writing. But there would not necessarily be such an expectation with the former. Something I used to do, is get my US news from Ha'aretz and Arabnews. Both pretty respected news sources, both engaging in "straight news reporting". Boy howdy would the articles have some pretty stark differences. 1
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted January 10, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 10, 2022 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do you make any distinction between straight news reporting, which is purportedly fair and balanced, and opinion pieces? I ask, because bias in the latter would be obvious and would be expected; it is, after all, opinion writing. But there would not necessarily be such an expectation with the former. If you’re teaching your students to avoid being misled by training them to spot bias, you would need to make it challenging by presenting stories to them that purport to be unbiased or at least balanced. Yes, that's one of the things we look at when we examine the website. For example, how many opinion/analysis pieces are placed underneath or even above an article purporting to be news? I just looked at CNN, and they have a story on a GOP senator admitting the election was not rigged. It has the biggest headline on the website. However, in the picture accompanying it, there is a small box that says: analysis. One could easily click on this large headline thinking it is actual news, when in fact it is someone's "analysis" (fancy word for opinion) on the news. Underneath this analysis are two articles labelled opinion and analysis. There's news in there somewhere, but it gets blended with analysis and opinion. I also peeked at Fox and it doesn't mention this senator at all. Instead, their main headline is about the supply chain crisis and includes the hashtag: #bareshelvesbiden We do look at straight news reporting from the two websites on the same event and see how that event is presented differently, even if subtly. It's a good exercise, even for me as a teacher, because we're looking at events that are happening right now, rather than some textbook examples of bias from the past. 7
bsjkki Posted January 10, 2022 Posted January 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Yes, that's one of the things we look at when we examine the website. For example, how many opinion/analysis pieces are placed underneath or even above an article purporting to be news? I just looked at CNN, and they have a story on a GOP senator admitting the election was not rigged. It has the biggest headline on the website. However, in the picture accompanying it, there is a small box that says: analysis. One could easily click on this large headline thinking it is actual news, when in fact it is someone's "analysis" (fancy word for opinion) on the news. Underneath this analysis are two articles labelled opinion and analysis. There's news in there somewhere, but it gets blended with analysis and opinion. I also peeked at Fox and it doesn't mention this senator at all. Instead, their main headline is about the supply chain crisis and includes the hashtag: #bareshelvesbiden We do look at straight news reporting from the two websites on the same event and see how that event is presented differently, even if subtly. It's a good exercise, even for me as a teacher, because we're looking at events that are happening right now, rather than some textbook examples of bias from the past. I do this all the time. I go to numerous news sources and check their story coverage. It's telling. But, also very depressing. We live in a world of propaganda and hard news is very difficult to find. 4
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 11, 2022 7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Yes, that's one of the things we look at when we examine the website. For example, how many opinion/analysis pieces are placed underneath or even above an article purporting to be news? I just looked at CNN, and they have a story on a GOP senator admitting the election was not rigged. It has the biggest headline on the website. However, in the picture accompanying it, there is a small box that says: analysis. One could easily click on this large headline thinking it is actual news, when in fact it is someone's "analysis" (fancy word for opinion) on the news. Underneath this analysis are two articles labelled opinion and analysis. There's news in there somewhere, but it gets blended with analysis and opinion. I also peeked at Fox and it doesn't mention this senator at all. Instead, their main headline is about the supply chain crisis and includes the hashtag: #bareshelvesbiden We do look at straight news reporting from the two websites on the same event and see how that event is presented differently, even if subtly. It's a good exercise, even for me as a teacher, because we're looking at events that are happening right now, rather than some textbook examples of bias from the past. I wish colleges and universities around the country would undertake more of this type of instruction. I fear they are producing far too many activists passing as journalists — and our society is the worse off for it. 7
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: We do look at straight news reporting from the two websites on the same event and see how that event is presented differently, even if subtly. It's a good exercise, even for me as a teacher, because we're looking at events that are happening right now, rather than some textbook examples of bias from the past. A point you might want to consider in your unit on bias (if you are not already doing so) is the current phenomenon of so-called “fact checking.” All too often, the “fact-checking” entity reflects some subtle bias of its own. This can be insidious, as the implied impression is that the “fact-checker” is some grand arbiter of truth to which the reader owes obeisance, when the “fact-checker” might be just as fallible as the one being “fact-checked.” Edited January 11, 2022 by Scott Lloyd 6
Recommended Posts