Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Eric Cho

ENGW 1111

Richards

23 March 2017

Media Bias

Headlines have taken over the world. Misleading titles aimed to twist the truth push a

narrative among people that intentionally creates fear and bias. Objective news reporting has

become an anomaly in this day in age as news corporations have become incentivized for higher

ratings and profits rather than their original purpose of edifying the general public. Organizations

plant their narrative in their viewers by leaving out stories that do not fit and unnecessarily over

reporting on others. The news intention of creating profit through their biased reporting

eventually pushes the truth to something that it is completely not. It is imperative for these

organizations cater to their readers opinions and approval for profit all the while supporting

candidates for their narrative in order to garner more attention towards their agenda and

ultimately more readerships. Out of the vast amount of accusations against each candidate, one

the biggest of them was the accusations against Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email

server. So much reporting occurred the public could not grasp a true understanding of what had

really happened through the pieces of evidence. Taking out the bias and observing the events

show what really happened and how bias changes perception.

By March 2015, the American people had come to know that Hillary Clinton owned a

private email server. Despite being public knowledge, her involvement on the Benghazi
Committee and her bid for presidential election heavily exacerbated attention to this topic. The

New York Times posted an article that stated Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at

State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules to Fox News eventually posting Email scandal proves

Hillary learned wrong lessons from Nixon and Watergate Every new update on the event

spurred on a frenzy of events which take allegation out of proportion. They immediately

compare her to Nixon because of his likely guiltiness, implying that she is a comparable figure.

The only difference is that Clinton was acquitted and Nixon resigned. Is Hillary supposed to be

drawn as similar simply because of allegations because it is abundantly clear that one had to step

down as president while the other was declared free of charges? The Fox News article goes on to

suggest her culpability through purposeful quotes inserted throughout their piece. Hillary

Clintons secret server jeopardized our national security and sensitive diplomatic efforts on more

than 2,000 occasions, and shockingly, it now appears her reckless conduct continued even after

leaving the State Department, The article continues to create their discuss the allegations but

does not create direct accusations of the crime. It ends with Maybe she didnt do it. Maybe

shell go on to win the presidential election. Maybe theyll have to change the process of which

how one is elected. Maybe the country will fail after her election. Who knows? What does that

mean? Her culpability is widely implied through this end statement. Clearly, Fox News uses

indirect statements to heavily suggest implications that she is in fact guilty. The article could

have clearly outright accused of her responsibility for this crime but that would not nearly as

effective in getting its purpose across. It instead sets up a clearly likely hypothetical for the

reader to agree with. They also suggest that even if she does win, the country is poised for failure

but who knows what will happen? Beliefs that are personally thought of are far more
aggressively defended than those that are simply regurgitated to you. Hillary is poised to be

guilty by the setup of information.

If we are to look at one side of the spectrum, we have to address the other. The right

suggests and pushes however the left diminishes and forget. The problem is not with what they

say but what they choose not to. After Wikileaks released thousands of documents, New York

Times failed to report on Hillarys implications with the leaks about Saudi Arabia funding Isis

and with the state department coordinating with Hillarys campaign. Its also really convenient

that two writers from the New York Times were accused of corroborating with the Hillary

campaign within the same leak. What also is very jarring is the down play of the seriousness of

the accusation. The Washington Post published articles such as Scandal! WikiLeaks reveals

Hillary Clinton to bereasonable and simple, which aims to down play the investigation and

leaks. The Washington Post states the excerpts suggests that she feels kind of far removed from

the ordinary Americans struggles because of her newfound wealth, and suggested she was

making a conscious effort to compensate for that and really admire[s] even ideological

opponents willing to run for office amid the toxicity of modern politics; she noted Its becomes

really convenient that the leaks only reveal positive statements that Hillary makes in her

emails. What happened to the leaks about her public and private position on Wall Street? Why

does the Post forget to mention how she said "The main reason behind successful immigration

should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are

almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese

people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks and Roma, for instance) fare badly almost

irrespective of circumstances." Are her leaks supposed to be all positive to prove Hillary has

nothing to hide and that inside she really is a wholesome person? Clearly the Washington post
knows their main demographic are liberals and purposefully aim to put her in better light in a

shitstorm of a scandal.

What do news corporations have to gain from their bias? These organizations may have

the intention of altering the political climate, but clearly there is profit as stake. Reporting on

events through their lenses that fit their audience, it is clear, news corporations today serve as

confirmation for these beliefs. Their core audience continuously comes back and actively

chooses to not get their news from a variety of sources due to confirmation bias. Higher ratings

create more revenue and profits and thus more bias is heavily implemented in this cycle of

selectivity and gain. Clearly news corporations tend to stick with their bias and support

candidates that share the bias of their readers. As conservative news sites trash on liberal ones

and vice versa, each viewer is reaffirmed for their disdain for the other side. Clearly Fox News

prefers Trump and sites like MSNBC are in favor for Hillary Clinton in harmony with their

readers. News sites research the trends of their audience and incentivize on the pre-established

viewpoints that the audience have in order to expand and maintain their audience.

Media organizations are clearly favored their personal candidate. Both try to either spur

on not proven allegations or diminish them by pointing towards the good. This symbiotic but

rather unhealthy relationship with the public and organizations feeding off of each other makes

that one is uninformed and other as rich. Hillary clearly had a scandal in hand but to say that it

was merely nothing or that she is immediately guilty are both offhand. We love to hear news that

is biased because it confirms that we are right and that the world is how we perceive it. News

reporting has deviated far from its original purpose of edifying the public. Long gone are the

days where we read the news to be informed whereas now we use it to confirm that we are right.

News articles are sold merely as biased advertisements packaged as news to attract more
readers. The publics attraction to their own perceived truth has created a market for news

corporations to make use of its stubbornness for profits.


Work Cited

"BIAS ALERT: WikiLeaks Exposes Media's Secret Support of Clinton." Fox News. FOX News

Network, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.

EDIT2. "Clinton Email Scandal: Hillary's Hypocrisy And Media's Bias Revealed." Investor's

Business Daily. Investor's Business Daily, 10 Oct. 2016. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.

"Email Scandal Proves Hillary Learned Wrong Lessons from Nixon and Watergate." Fox News.

FOX News Network, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.

Kopan, Gregory Krieg and Tal. "Is This the Email That Hacked John Podesta's Account?" CNN.

Cable News Network, 30 Oct. 2016. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.