Detecting Media Bias
It is said by the unknown author that “..
. It is natural to develop prejudices. It is noble to rise above them”. Until people have preferences, they will have prejudices; however, critical thinking and analysis helps to uncover the hidden meaning or part of sound, at first sight, point or idea. The headline news story which I am writing about is published on Thursday, September, 6th, 2012 at 15.
41 EDT at guardian.co.uk. The article describes the actions of the Republican Party as the ceaseless and exceptional obstructionism against Obama’s entire presidential system and him personally and says that such attitude backfired against the Republican Party; they lost their popularity among American people who despite the very mediocre economic performance prefer to vote for re-election of the President Obama. Despite many facts that were brought in support of the reporter’s point of view, the story lacks clearness and accurateness as well as depth and breadth.
We have learned only about vices, weaknesses, and dishonourable actions of the Republican Party and about virtues, strengths and honourable actions of the President as if we have seen the picture in black and white. However, the political life is composed of semitones which represent such factors as differences and disagreements, arguments and conflicts, and not only cooperation and concessions, agreements and rapports. There is historically established fact that no one can always be accurate in 100 cases out from 100; so, there is likelihood that, sometimes, when the Republican Party was disagreed with the presidential policy, the Republicans could be just. As mentioned in the article, Obama was able to pass an $800 billion incentive program and healthcare reform, and that was a miracle of the last forty years. Adoption of healthcare reform is a monumental achievement, and the President deserves a great deal of respect, but since the Obama became the President of the U.
S. only four years ago, here is no correlation between the obstructionism against Obama’s policy and the Republican Party. Thus, the Republicans were against health care reform for a long time, yet it is natural that the politicians as passionate and ideological activists transfer their antagonism to a person who represents the concept. Nevertheless, the author of article following his goal neglected to consider alternative perspectives, because they can distract the potential reader from his main point; author deliberately selected the facts and gave them in a way which emphasized the advantages of Obama’s presidency and underlined the deficiencies of the Republican’s strategy. He decided not to mention at least one aspect of Republican’s positive impact as if their participation in governing the U.
S. is utterly useless. Moreover, considering all adverse facts that are listed in the article, their influence is exclusively harmful for the United States. Such biased view of events in a complex and comprehensive sphere of country profile gives rise to doubts in fairness and impartiality of the article, and, as a consequence, its trustworthiness and integrity. The ability of critical thinking protects us from believing everything we see on TV or read in newspapers and magazines. Although most authors work hard to do comprehensive and extensive research and care of the truthfulness of their stories more than anything, some journalists intentionally use the media to distort facts by emphasizing some factors and neglecting the others.
Hence, the critical consideration is indispensable to distinguish reality from forgery and to be sceptical about published or broadcasted conceptions, especially related to political activity.