We're going to be examining the problem of bias in the news. You're probably thinking, "I'm not prejudiced. So I would never be biased in my reporting or writing." But bias isn't the same thing as prejudice. Prejudice is a deliberate negative feeling or attitude. Bias is a tendency or an inclincation to assume a certain viewpoint, and a bias may be favorable or unfavorable and is not always deliberate. Even if your work is free of bias, you need to be a critical observer of the news media and have a greater understanding of bias in reporting. Because it happens. All the time.
Bias can occur in many ways, particularly through:
- Selection and omission of specific details
- Placement of a story
- Choice of sources
- Word choice and tone
- Headlines
- Photos and camera angles
- Captions
- Names and titles
- Statistics
The second article seemed more bias to me because the writer kept using the word "threatend" which wasn't even in a quote, those were his own words he was proving as fact.
ReplyDeleteAlso I never thought about how I could be using biased words in my articles and not even know it. You have to be really careful with everything you write because you may write things that sound prejudice, but really it was a total accident.
I also now see that many news casts definently use bias in their programs; but it isn't very obvious when they do so sometimes, you really have to look out at what they say. The professionals might not even know if they sound bias. The tone of their voice definently sets off the mood of the story.
I think that some people are often unintentionally biased. People are used to giving their opinion and sometimes don't focus on giving both sides of the story. These two stories are an example of how some writers are not conscious of their word choice. One word can change the whole aspect of the story.
ReplyDeleteI think both the articles are a bit biased, but it is slightly easier to tell in the second article because it is a little more up-front about it. By using the words threatened and forcing they are saying that Iraq was more malevolent, and uncooperative towards them. In the first article you have to look for it, it is not so obvious as it was in the first. I think these articles help to show how a few words can change the meaning and tone of an article, and that you have to be careful what you write.
ReplyDeleteI think both articles are bias in their own way, but I'm not sure they were intentionally bias. Sometimes you just let your judgment get in the way without realizing you are being unfair. I'm surprised their editors let the bias get all the way to print when their stories was clearly unfair and against what journalism stands for.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these articles showed bias, but the second article was clearly leaning toward one side and making the other side look bad. This may be unintentional or was done knowingly. A lot of times it is hard to give both sides of the story even when one side may seem to be more trustworthy or better than the other. All journalists should try to keep bias and their personal beliefs on the back burner when they are writing a hard news story because people need to hear both sides of the argument to asses the situation on their own. However, some writers may shwo bias in their writing even if they don't mean to. Fairness is what all reporters should aim for.
ReplyDeleteThis actually surprised me a bit because writers can often come off as bias without even trying to do so. However, I did not realize that limiting debate was a form of bias. But in the end, I just think that journalists need to be more careful in making sure that they give all sides of an argument. Whether or not they intended to be bias, it's how an article is interpreted by the reader that really counts.
ReplyDeleteEven though it seems both of these articles are biased, the second one in particular, it does not come across to me that the author of them wanted to get their own agenda out there blatantly. It just seemed to me that they were reporting the same story, but they both had a different take on it. I do not think either of them were harmful to readers because it was not obvious in either article that the author was trying to stress their opinions.
ReplyDeleteIt's alarming to see how greatly affected the articles were by bias. Both articles were biased, and both brought astronomically different results. In a serious story such as that, those gaping errors could cause huge problems. I think that the articles go to show the phenomenal effect bias can have in news stories, and that journalists should take every precaution in order to avoid such a mistake.
ReplyDeleteThough both articles did show 'bias', I believe the discrepancy between the articles resulted more from ignorance than intentional bias. The reporters seemed to focus on getting either the UN's (in the first article) or the US's(in the second) position. I think the reporter's 'bias' demonstrated their inability to gather a lot of information from all sides of the story.
ReplyDeleteI thought that being biased and prejudice went hand-in-hand together,but now it makes more sense knowing that they aren't exactly the same thing. Also I learned that you can be biased without trying, and that it's important to watch how you present the material you are reporting as a journalist.
ReplyDeleteThe articles really make clear that you can spin the same facts in a variety of ways with your choice of words and the way you present facts and different information. These articles really illustrate the point that journalistic writers must be careful to give information without letting their views affect how they present the story. Journalistic writers must not let their own opinions and biases be reflected in their writing. This requires careful attention to use of words and a balanced approach to giving all sides of the story.
ReplyDelete