Pushing The Agenda: News Outlets Making Up Your Mind in America

Now, I'd like to point out for a change a positive light on this article. First, the reporter Ana Swanson does a wonderful job objectively detailing what new duties on the Canadian jet Bombardier means financially for the company as well as how it ties into escalating trade tensions amidst the uncertainty of the future of NAFTA. Note: I just thought this was a cool video from Bombardier Also, in relation to her quotes, they're placed strategically to progress the story along. Overall, this article is a rather objective reporting of the news. Photo by Fabrizio Verrecchia However, the headline entails a negative connotation towards the duties for readers. An import from another country accruing duties is of no financial dismal to the U.S. and if anything can potentially be a way to say a market in a favorable turn. Therefore, prefacing the article with the headline 'slaps' implies a negative connotation. Even worse, this negative connotation is being sent...

Well, Igor Bobic's political article over the victory of, what the HuffPost's front page calls, a bigot . Nice. (Note the sarcasm) A personal screenshot of the HuffPost's front page I would like to start this post by saying I am in no way supporting/advocating Roy Moore, nor am I condemning him. I am simply analyzing the lack of objectivity in the news, and starting off, this headline already has the reader seeing a very subjective viewpoint. Imagine you're a Roy Moore supporter in Alabama who believes in his strong upholding of Christian beliefs and conservative values - would you appreciate the person you're placing your faith in being called a bigot? Additionally, would you appreciate a news outlet in a non-opinion piece defining your choice candidate as a bigot? No, and fairly so. Photo by Arnaud Jaegers Moving from the front page, Bobic does a seemingly nice job of blending information and removing any subjective phrasing from the reporting, ...

This is a rather short article , but can be viewed in an opinion pushing light. To see the opinion of this article, you have to take into account the underlying assumption that the reporter Brian Fung assumes the audience is aware that Trump isn't the most liked person ever - especially his tweets. The headline is: Twitter explains why it won’t take down Trump’s North Korea tweet The dilemma with this headline is that it infers that Twitter should take down Trump's tweet. Instead of a more objective headline like, "Will Twitter take down Trump's North Korea tweet," This brings the reader in assuming they should agree with the fact that Twitter should be taking down his tweet and therefore pursuing the belief his tweet was inappropriate (even though it was). Photo by freestocks.org Additionally, Brain doesn't add any supportive quotes on the issue which could potentially sway audiences to believe that everyone sees Trumps tweeting as a negative a...

Photo by G. Crescoli This article by Brooke Singman for Fox News was almost a well reported article covering an event, but lacked objectivity in the headline. The actual body of the article itself is full of check-able quotes and the removal of herself in the writing. This is all about what happened and what major players said what. She quotes Trump multiple times as well as Press Secretary Sarah Sanders. Additionally, she states facts without opinion like when she informs the reader that Jordin Sparks, a former American Idol contestant, sang the national anthem. The only error is in her headline here: Trump calls on NFL to outlaw anthem protests, blasts Cowboys for kneeling Using a descriptor such a blast with such a negative connotation is not one that speak objectivity. A replacement such as responds, rebuts, or anything else more neutral would've been far more acceptable. The headline, after all, is one of the most important parts.  It's the readers firs...

In this article by Daniella Diaz for CNN, Diaz gives us the 'need to knows' of the Alabama senate race. Now, this isn't the first time I've seen these regular headlines from CNN and Time magazine with related titles saying something like, 'Everything you need to know about ____,' but, this is one instance of it. Photo by Jomar Thomas Not only does this persuade a reader to believe that this is an inclusive overview of the Alabama senate race, but with Diaz's occasional opinion being written into the article it also persuades the reader towards a side. Diaz says , "[Roy Moore]... a much less popular figure among Alabama Republicans than Trump." It's become an understanding, thanks to the media blasting polls and opinions, that Trump is not very liked. Now, Diaz, without referencing  any statistics, has claimed that Roy Moore is less popular than Trump amongst the general Republican population of Alabama. This insert of opinion, as trivi...

In this article written by Dan Zak, a feature writer for The Washington Post, he liters this feature with subjective commentary and thoughts. He starts by self-dubbing America the land of the grudgeocracy.  "Instead, he berated them for months-old coverage he deemed unfair." - Dan Zak I believe the use of language such as "berated" is such descriptive word, that it leads the reader to align their perspective on the subject along with the writer. I can believe that President Trump berated these television journalists about what he's deemed unfair for past coverage, but the context in which words are used can be persuasive for a reader.  "Grudge karma! It seems to be on the president-elect’s mind the moment he wakes up ." - Dan Zak Continuing his argument of the grudgeocracy  we live in, Zak blatantly starts a point with a totally personal opinion that has loaded language meant to win those over to his side (and a funny one at that). He even ...