 |
| Creative Commons photo by DonkeyHotey |
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
On a related note, some words over time are dropped by journalists when they become offensive to people. For example, a number of news organizations are refusing to print or broadcast the term "Washington Redskins". Here is a brief article that explains the controversy. Do you think journalists need to avoid terms that may be offensive? Or do you think they shouldn't spend so much time worrying about being "politically correct"?
While it is critical to be accurate in the information and titles that are used in stories, it is crucial that the values of the readers are the first priority in any story written. As shown by ideas of potential articles and announcements for the Red Skins, choice of words are intensely important and need to have great consideration put into each and every one of them. Although Red a Skins is the name that the team has independently chosen, if the name is offensive to viewers and listeners those words or phrases are in need of omission. It is solely the articles' or the announcer's responsibility to decide to leave the word or phrase in or omit it entirely. What is said and announced can have great effects on people, and even has the potential be devastating to a mass variety of people. This rule is especially crucial for journalist, news broadcasters, and radio announcers; purposely or mistakenly, the things exposed publicly to a wide variety of viewers affect each and every individual either in a good way or a bad way.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the two articles about the US flight issue is so vivid and great that it is unbelievable. The first article depicts the incident simply and just give news of what happened during the flight. They really leave it up to the reader to choose what to believe about the plane issue. They also seem to point fingers at UN officials and believe that they caused some of the madness. The second article is almost shocking to read after you've read the first one. The second depicts the Iraqi people as terrorists and seem to completely blame Iraq for the plane issues. When I first learned about being biased in class, It didn't seem like it was a frequent and purposeful act but when I read the articles, I couldn't believe my eyes. The amount of biased opinions in the paper true explain how journalism affects people's views and make people develop a stereotype or biased opinion of their own because of a certain article or news report.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Washington Redskins, I think that newspapers removing the name from their publications was a great idea but has some down sides. Though, I personally believe that the name is offensive to native Americans, it is still however, the name of a well-known NFL football team and it just be quite a task to report about a sports team if you can't use the name of the team. The name should be changed because calling a team red-skins is just as bad as calling a team the black-skins. Both are racially offensive and are definitely not praising the culture of Native Americans.
I was surprised when reading the first two articles linked that there was so much bias. I found a lot of bias especially in the first one. It used a lot of worlds like "complained" or "was unaware" and even quoted an official saying that the situations was "blown out of proportion" and "misunderstanding" without completely finishing what they had said. This word choice is somewhat subtle and many would not notice the true bias, but it is definitely written to persuade the reader to think a certain way. About the Washington Red Skins, I think it is incredible that many news organizations are refusing to use the term in their print. I think that the team name seems extremely offensive to Native Americans. It is a reporter's job to be able to speak to all people of all groups of people. I think that if these specific reporters continue to write without using the name "Red Skins" they can speak to both Native Americans and sports fanatics, whether or not they support the name.
ReplyDeleteBrooklyn, I agree with you. I was also really surprised by the amount of bias used in the articles. It was very interesting to see how two articles can be produced with different, but vivid and unique perspectives and viewpoints.
DeleteI completely agree with Brooklyn. I was shocked and dismayed that the news media was so bias. The editors of the newspaper should have gotten rid of those errors and it is disappointing that they failed to do so. In my opinion the writers and editors of news articles should try harder to make sure they are only presenting the facts and not pushing an unwanted opinion on their readers.
DeleteI was shocked to have found so much bias in both the articles. Both of the articles are presented in an unprofessional way and should have defiantly been reviewed before publishing. There is discrepancy between the two articles covering the incident. In the first article, UN Officials do not state that Iraqi planes were launched. While in the other article, US Officials state that Iraqi planes threatened and took off in direction of the spy planes. There is no clarification of the conflicting statements in either article. The word choice used in the first article defiantly works to persuade the reader to think in a specific way. The second one uses bias elements, as well. The second article's headline is extremely bias. Using words like "surveillance" and "threatened", the author is defiantly trying to defend and justify the spy planes. Also, the second article only uses one identified source, which can bring about questions of accuracy and bias.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Washington Redskins, I am troubled as to where I stand in all of the controversy. I think that the title might offend part of the Native American culture, but some people also believe that the name should be embraced. I don't believe that the Washington Redskins football program is trying to offend anyone. I personally believe that they chose the name to embrace the culture. But since people are being offended and getting upset, something has to be done. I understand the anger and rage people are feeling towards this incident. It's the journalist's job to print stories and news with facts. It is their job to speak to all people, no matter what race or ethnicity. Although it will cause controversy, reporters need to be upfront and honest.
In both articles there is bias, but the first article it is easier to notice by the words used. The author almost sounded annoyed that they had to write the article and it was biased as well. There was also omission of certain facts, like when it said in the first article that Buchanan was unaware of the planes, and making it sound like the official was clueless. Many of the facts could have been more clear in both articles. I think journalists should avoid offensive terms and be politically correct because it could affect the readers of their writing and they might get less money. And about the Washington Redskins, I do not think the name should be changed. The team has had that name for many years. Why now do the Native Americans want to change it? It just doesn't make sense to me. If it was sooooooo offensive to them, why didn't they object when the team first decided to call themselves that? Also, I don't think the name is offensive at all. They don't use it in mean or cruel ways at all. The Native Americans today are not the same Native Americans that were invaded by the Europeans and other cultures back then, so I don't see why it's offensive that a term used hundreds of years ago would be so offensive today. I feel like this situation is one of those times where a group of people all want to make a big deal about something just for the heck of it. Just because there's something to make a big deal about. Maybe they are bored with their lives. I don't know what they really are thinking, but that's just what I think.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by how the two articles on the planes, could be about the same thing but have two completely different tones to them. I think journalist have to be able to find the balance in being unbiased but sill being able to add "color" and a sense of personality to their articles. In regards to journalist writing "politically correct", I think it is important to think about all the possible audiences you may have and how your words might effect them. Journalist should not have to focus mainly on not saying the wrong then, but by practicing to use non-suggestive words, I think they could get into the habit of having less bias within their work.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting how two articles written about the same event can be so completely different due to a writer’s bias. I think that it is in the writer’s best interest to avoid biased terms. This way there is no controversy over a writer’s piece. I don’t think they should ever be biased, but I can see where some writers would think it was okay. For example, if they were writing for a newspaper that was very biased and their audience was mainly one political party, they are only trying to please one group of people. Therefore, it would make sense for them to only share this side. As for most writers, I feel they should maintain a very non-biased style of writing because they want to please all types and show both opinions of both sides. This could expose readers to new ideas.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's interesting how sometimes people have hidden biases in their papers. Because everyone has their own opinions, I can see how it would be hard to avoid using them in the article at least a bit by accident. It's something a writer should be very careful about. Simple word choice or selection of details used in a story can imply the writer’s bias.
It surprises me how newsprints are these day an I find it funny how the same story came come to an audience and make them feel completely opposite ways. In regards to the two articles about the U.N. and the U-2 planes, it puts a new perspective on things. When I say this I means that I wonder now what other piece of news I have read that have presented either a strongly positive or negative connotation to form my opinions a certain way. I was certainly surprised by some of the hidden biases like a couple of the words in each story were strong verbs and adjective to be using for a supposed "unbiased" story such as, "concerned" or "unwillingness to cooperate". The two articles placed completely different thoughts into my head, for one was talking about the safety and one was portraying the Iraqi as a major threat to us all. I definitely think that journalist should avoid using any phrase of word that could potentially offend a certain race or group of people. The journalists don't know the audience that will be reading their story and it is disrespectful to write something offensive just for the sake of a good story.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is vital to be sensitive to the readers' views when writing a story. The readers have all had different experiences, and if a group of readers finds the word offensive, then it shouldn't be used. You never know exactly how the word affects them or makes them feel. It's necessary to keep journalism professional, and use words that aren't too controversial. Also, I was very surprised by some of the hidden bias in the journalism stories on the website. There was a lot of important information left out by one article that could be found in another. In addition, the tone of the two articles made it especially clear how the journalists felt about the issue
ReplyDelete