Aaron Karasik

2/28/17
Media Bias Essay
ENGW 1111
{Insert Audience-Pleasing Headline Here}

In February, United States president Donald Trump met with Israeli Prime minister

Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss foreign policy and diplomacy between the two allied nations.

The meeting and press conference were important in thawing US-Israeli relations after a tense

relationship during the Obama Administration. Generally, Republican administrations and

representatives have had more positive views of Israel and its actions. The two leaders discussed

many controversial issues revolving around the two countries, including potential Iranian nuclear

arsenals and continued settlement construction in the West Bank. However, the focal point of the

meeting was future plans for an elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, specifically whether

to pursue a two-state, or alternative, solution. As with most White House press conferences, a

number of different media outlets with different perspectives were present to cover the event.

Public trust in media is at an alltime low. Over the past few months, distrust in the media

has been prevalent as never before, with constant attacks on the media by the Trump

Administration, and the emergence of a new breed of alternative facts. However, unlike the

misinformation present on forums such as social media, and contrary to many millennials

opinions, reputable media outlets rarely reports blatant lies. Instead, media bias exists, and often

appears implicitly, generated by subtle language choices and the connotations of words. The

prevalence of media bias becomes apparent when analyzing coverage of a single news story, in

this case, the Trump-Netanyahu meeting, across different news sources such as Reuters, a

generally neutral portal for headline news stories, The New York Times, a left-leaning news

staple, and Fox News, a conservative media outlet.

 To examine the implicit bias that exists in their reporting, it makes the most sense to start

with the part of an article that receives the most exposure; the headline. As the first words, and

often the only words, the audience reads, the headline functions as a way to not only summarize

a news story, but to grasp the readers attention. Thus, the editor must be cognizant to pick a

phrase that both hits on the articles focal point and sets the tone for the rest of the reporting, in a

light that most effectively creates intrigue for their target audience. The headline lets the reader

know whats important to understand, in the shortest amount of words possible.

In the Reuters article, the author takes a fairly neutral stance in the articles headline:

Meeting Israel's Netanyahu, Trump backs away from commitment to Palestinian state. The

Reuters headline relays the conference highlights in a generally even way. The headline makes it

clear that Trumps statements differ from conventional beliefs. Trump backing away from the

commitment informs the reader that he is considering alternatives to a Palestinian state, but not

that he is dumping it entirely. He is simply changing existing United States foreign policy, when

it comes to the Middle East. In this case, commitment is the key word that provides Reuters the

ability to convey that there is flexibility in the path that Trump may ultimately take.

The New York Times headline generally falls in line with Reuters, but takes a more

direct route, stating, Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From Palestinian State.

Although every word in this headline can be found in the Reuters headline, the more blunt

version possesses a different connotation, specifically due to the omission of the word

commitment. By backing away from a Palestinian State, Trumps comments seem more

definitive and final than by backing away from a commitment to a Palestinian state. The former

makes it seem as if his comments were a death sentence to a two-state solution, while the later

leaves the door open for multiple scenarios and touches on the undeniable ambiguity of current
American policy. Backing away from the Palestinian state, by extension, implies that Trump is

backing away from the Palestinian people, which may stretch the truth of his actions.

The Fox News headline, in contrast to the two aforementioned headlines, avoids

mentioning the shift in policy regarding the two-state solution, entirely. Instead, it states, Trump

touts prospects for 'great' Mideast peace deal, prods Netanyahu on settlements. Although the

article delves into the two-state solution, Fox News, decides to circumvent the controversial

matter in its headline and focus in on the complementary aspects of the press conference. Fox

News uses strong verbs to convey Trumps negotiation tactics in touts and prods. The first,

makes it seem as if Trump is boldly trying to sell the idea, or convince others, that a Middle East

peace deal is in the works. Although unlikely, this concept adds confidence in Trumps decision

making. Additionally, the use of prods indicates, in a sense, that Trump has the upper hand in the

relationship, aggressively persuading Netanyahu to reverse his settlement policies. Used in

conjunction, the words convey Trump in a generally powerful light, but fails to offer many

specifics, in terms of policy changes or implications.

The headlines lay a foundation for the tone and subject of the article, but the true

substance remains in the article itself. All three sources dive more thoroughly into the topic of a

two-state solution, reflecting for the most part, the message they initially lay out in their first

appeal to the reader. The articles expand on the headline issue, followed by other relevant

information, in order of deemed importance. While Reuters and New York Times open with

discussion on a two-state solution, Fox News reserves the topic until after it elaborates on

Trumps negotiating skills and comments on settlement construction.

Used again as a generally moderate baseline, the Reuters article provides a

comprehensive evaluation of Trumps statements, reporting, the Republican president backed

away from a U.S. embrace of the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, upending a position

taken by successive administrations and the international community. Reuters does well to

provide additional information to strengthen the context of Trumps statements. For years, as

stated, the creation of a Palestinian has been accepted by the United Nations and United States as

the appropriate course of action in negotiating Middle Eastern peace. Reuters relays the change

in policy that Trump is implementing, but uses an uncharacteristically strong verb, in

upending, to describe the implications of his opinions. Although Trumps proposals may stray

from prior official policy, they do not turn the tables as much as the word suggests, as similar

sentiments were shared by Obama towards the end of his tenure as president. Additionally, the

use of backed and embrace makes the policy shift seem definitive, and American policy, in

general, seem very closely tied to Palestine.

As with the headline, the New York Times covering of the conference aligns with

Reuters, but once again takes a more dire stance: Mr. Trumps position on a two-state solution

discarded a policy that has underpinned Americas role in Middle East peacemaking since the

Clinton administration and raised a host of thorny questions. Firstly, the New York Times

escalates the gravity of Trumps actions through the use of the verb discarded, as opposed to

the still rather harsh upended. The Timess word choice implies that Trump found no use in

prior policies and decided to completely table previous peace proposals, almost as an

afterthought. The Times continues to rouse its audience by stating that this policy underpinned

American involvement in Middle East peacemaking. Although a two-state solution was indeed

the status quo for decades, it is not as much of a staple, nor as viable, as the phrasing has the

reader believe. Additionally, and most blatantly, the author states that Trumps announcement led

to a host of thorny questions. As with any major announcement, questions must be raised, and
perhaps shocking as it may be, the shift in opinion was not as distressful or troubling as the

article has the audience believe. The use of the adjective thorny, in this case, seems more

opinionated than factual.

Reminiscent of its initial headline, Fox News account of the two-state announcement

strays from the template of Reuters and the New York Times: Asked about the U.S. stance at the

press conference, Trump left it openhe said he thinks a two-state solution could be easier, but

he can live with either option. Fox News provides an explanation that is simplistic, in

comparison to Reuters and The New York Times, but in fairness, it closely reflects the actual

words of Donald Trump. By leaving it open and mentioning option[s], Fox News insinuates

that Trump does not take a firm stance, if at all. In addition, the article uses weak non-substantive

and ambiguous verbs such as he said and he thinks that provide little context or additional

information past basic facts. This leaves many interpretations available for the reader and

simplifies the issues at hand. The policy change is left untouched, and the article, as with the

omission in the headline, makes it seem as if the Israeli-Palestinian peace portion of the

conference should be de-emphasized.

No examination of media bias could be complete without examining the original source

material, Donald Trumps statement on the two-state solution. In his press conference, Trump

announced, I'm looking at two states and one state, and I like the one that both parties like. Im

very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one. As the Fox News

states, Trump does in fact seem to leave his plans wide open with his statement. Although he

does move away from a commitment to pursue a Palestinian state as the only solution, the two-

state solution is never eliminated as an option. To Trump, the most important part of a successful

peace agreement is the negotiation between the two parties and the compromises and
concessions that must be made by both in order to reach agreement. All of the outlets examined

report the story in a way that relies on facts and truthful information, but what they choose to

emphasize separates them the most. The outlets tend to place more significance on issues that

matter to their readers the most, and sometimes shape the story to imply a prefered interpretation.

Simply stated, media is biased. It is biased because it is a business. Media outlets are not

seeking to tell the unabridged truth anymore, but rather look to relay events in a way that

engages and interacts with their target audience. In reality, it seems that consumers are not

always interested in hearing the unadulterated truth; they want to hear what satisfies them. If

truth were king, these outlets would cease to exist and the media landscape would return to the

days of yore, when the public trusted their anchormen. Those interested in neutral reporting

would rush in waves to aggregates such as Reuters or AP, but many seek alternatives they believe

in. The media tends to reflect the sentiments of the general public, for it relies on the general

public to maintain relevance and keep afloat. As the country becomes increasingly polarized,

partisan and sensational, so will American media outlets. Those who dont like it will have to get

used to it, because the American media sensation is here for good.

Sources:

Baker, Luke, and Matt Spetalnick. "Meeting Israel's Netanyahu, Trump Backs Away from
Commitment to Palestinian State." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 16 Feb. 2017. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-israel-idUSKBN15U0GB>.

Baker, Peter, and Mark Landler. "Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From
Palestinian State." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Feb. 2017. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-
trump.html>.

"Trump Touts Prospects for 'great' Mideast Peace Deal, Prods Netanyahu on
Settlements." Fox News. FOX News Network, 15 Feb. 2017. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/15/trump-touts-prospects-for-great-mideast-peace-
deal-prods-netanyahu-on-settlements.html>.