It is essential for news media to be fair and accurate with everything they report, as they hold tremendous power in setting cultural guidelines and in shaping our political views. As terrible as it is to say, a lot of them will use this to their advantage trying to push their opinions on an audience, instead of giving us the information to decide. I decided to find a recent headline in politics since the elections are coming up soon. You would be surprised how many media sites express their opinions more than the facts. You’d be more surprised at how hard it is for someone to detect bias in politics because they feel the same way.
The recent headline I found was with fox news, titled “Social conservations claim Obama’s gay marriage endorsement could unite right”. Even someone who doesn’t know how to look for a bias can see one right in the headline. They know that this headline will anger anyone that opposes gay marriage, even though the article itself has nothing to really do with the endorsement. As you read the article, you can clearly see where fox news stands with this issue, as well as with the president. It’s clear that they are trying to persuade their audience, as they use way more opinions than facts throughout the reading. The story is clear and accurate with the parts they want you to hear, it lacks depth and fails to report how the people pertaining to the issue feel and how they will be affected. It repeatedly quotes political figures that are against the endorsement, yet holds only one quote from a political figure that supports it.
With these quotes for support, the article goes on about how this endorsement is not going to sway the people’s decision when voting. In my opinion, they are implying that Obama is only using it as a tactic to get more votes in the upcoming election. This becomes more evident when they add in the figures. They show the results of a poll taken to see what people thought of the endorsement. It shows that even though 51% of those polled approve of the decision only 13% were more likely to vote for him now. The poll was only conducted with a little over a thousand people, which is barely a fraction of registered voters. They then announce that the first openly gay member of congress doesn’t think the endorsement literally changed anyone’s vote, but they don’t offer the opinion of any one person that this endorsement will actually affect. The best they can do is quote a member of congress, who they know is speaking in terms of politics and not his personal opinion.
Not only was this article full of opinions and little facts, it did not show in any way how the people feel on the subject. This is why it is so important to make distinctions when undertaking a critical evaluation. You have to be able to see both sides of the argument, how it will affect people, and many other important factors. With this article, there isn’t enough actual facts to make a judgment on the endorsement, let alone how it could “unite right” as it claimed in the headline. I would have to read many other reports on the matter to have a good understanding and judgment.