Bennett Snyder
bs381219@ohio.edu
It's very clear to most that almost all major media sources nowadays lean one way politically. You've got your CNNs, and you've got your FOX news' with loads of other sources between. For someone just cracking into the depth of news sources when the election was taking place, the realization of this divide was clear as day.
Growing up in a house where my Mom is a Democrat and my Dad was a Republican didn't make life fun come election years. When I was younger they kept it less obvious, but last year they made it clear they disagreed on a lot of topics. This comparison I believe rings true to a lot of news sources. As we are further away from election dates, say a president is in year 1 of his first term, news sources may make it less obvious which side they lean towards to try and attract all audiences. As the years go on, and that president is nearing the end of his or her term, we start to see news sources pick up the intensity and truly show their political side.
In some cases, the person in office is so polarizing, it does not matter how far along they are in their term, they most certainly will always be the center of attention. One side will view them as royalty, one side will view them as a coward. Donald Trump was that guy.
 |
| Image: Financial Times |
Tyler Fisher wrote a great article showing how Trump was covered by both sides of the media pertaining to the same events. After violence erupted in Charlottesville, here were a few headlines from the right: "Donald Trump Blasts Reporters at Trump Tower for One-Sided Charlottesville Reporting" and "Trump decries 'alt-left' in Charlottesville: 'Do they have any semblance of guilt?'". Now, let's look at headlines from the right: "Trump Gives White Supremacists an Unequivocal Boost" and "Trump: 'Both sides' to blame for Charlottesville". Two headlines from each side could not be more different due to the way the media is politicized.
Covering hate is a tricky topic, nobody really likes to hate, the defeats the purpose! Hate is bad, something we should avoid at all costs in journalism. According to Rachel Glickhouse , we saw a rise in hate crimes and bias incidents as we neared closer to the 2020 election. There is no doubt in my mind we still see that connection as we continue to cover COVID-19 in the media. What I've learned is no matter what agenda your publisher has, you need to be careful your words don't spark the public to be enraged. Most times, the best way to do this, report the facts.
Hi Bennett! It is truly interesting to see how polarizing certain news sources can be. Growing up, I definitely saw the divide and have personally tried to reduce my exposure to biased information as I've gotten older. I agree that the best way to reduce this polarization is to simply report the facts and to use less divisive language. As journalists, it is our job to be an outlet for information to the public, which is difficult to do if news outlets are unable to remain neutral in political situations.
ReplyDeleteI agree that reporting the facts is better than creating juicy headlines that border the line sensationalism. The facts are not always interesting or trending and receive less attention but they do fight against misinformation. I think if news organization have a neutral headline that will not grab attention they can garner in other ways, like social media post and multimedia post.
ReplyDeleteThis Blog is an extremely relevant topic in today's society. It is almost as if there can no longer be a social media post for the sake of posting without the post being related to one side or the other politically.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this blog! This situation was very much shown during the 2020 election and was very obvious to both sides. I dislike how news sources are so bias and think if a news source could just give facts on what is happening, it would make things much better so everyone could interpret it how they please.
ReplyDelete