Using the Evaluating News Sources handout from class, choose five media outlets from across the political spectrum — one or two from the left/liberal side, one or two mainstream and one or two from the right/conservative side.
You are already reading The New York Times for two weeks, so that can be one of your five.
Compare/contrast the coverage of one day's news across the five outlets. How is the news alike? How is it different? Were some items left out? Why? Can you tell where the media outlet lines up (liberal, conservative, neutral)? How and why?
Do this for two days, so you'll have 10 total observations. Post those here, and in conclusion, tell me whether you think the chart is accurate.
Due by 11 a.m. Monday, March 13.
The New York Times,The Washington Post are alike because they have some of the same view points and cover most of what is going on in the world as far as important news They differ by The New York Times being more bigger and has more subscribers. Fox News an the daily caller They differ by Fox news being more popular than the daily caller and are alike because they are both conservative and mostly republican. MSNBC and US uncut are more liberal and mostly democratic they differ by ranking and who watches and MSNBC gets more viewers than US uncut. I think that alot of people do like CNN because on the sheet it said that it is less liked but more people watch CNN than what is portrayed.The media outlets line up according to who is running them mostly they all have there own title of what is portrayed on the news. The chart is accurate ll except CNN is ore liked than what is on the sheet.
ReplyDeleteI looked up US Uncut, CNN, HuffingtonPost, BBC, Washington Post, and Natural News. I went to US Uncut and their website was shut down, but I am not sure why. It probably had something to do with fake news? Not quite sure, but I thought it was interesting that its website was not in business anymore. Out of the 5 that I read from I liked BBC the most. It's articles were not very biased and it seemed like the information that they shared was legit. They did not really have a liberal or conservative side to them. It seemed like they did not have a particular side that they were for. If anything they are for the people. Here are my 10 observations that I made from the 5 websites that I checked out.
ReplyDeleteSome of the articles found on Natural News and Washington Post were a it biased
There were articles that would have eye catching titles, but the material that was presented was not really about the person they mentioned in their title.
Natural News seemed to be targeting younger audiences like young adults and teenagers.
When I went to Huffington Post the first thing I saw was Tom Cotton. This website uses big pictures to draw the attention of the readers to the article.
Advertisements were everywhere. Most of them were off to the right side of the page and out of the way. There were some that had them in between articles.
There were a few that were not as biased, mainly because they only stated the facts and did not analyze anything that was quoted.
The organization of the websites were pretty much the same. I will say that naturalnews hurt my eyes because there was too much going on.
There were a lot of videos. CNN used videos I think because they have a their own broadcast.
Most of the websites were easy to navigate and most of them did have the same set up. There would be categories and then sub topics and at the top there were headings that you could click to help narrow the type of news you received.
The type of words that were used for the websites I think probably depended on the type of audience that they know or believe to view their articles. CNN and BBC were more professional in the way they wrote their articles and they were not trying to fluff up anything. On the other hand, Natural News seemed to be telling a story when I read their article. They also used a lot of inappropriate words and were very sarcastic.
Overall I think that the chart was accurate. I checked out a few of the websites and I ended up thinking the same thing that the creator of the chart thought. There may be a few things that I did not agree on, but when it comes to the content of the articles, the chart was not incorrect about it. I do think that CNN does have clickbait, but I do not think of it in a negative context.
Info Wars
ReplyDelete1) This is really quite humorous. I have just finished a news story, and it is just simply insane. The article title being, "HOW THE LEFT WANTS YOU TO JOIN THEIR MEDICAL SLAVE CAMPS". Already that caught my attention, but the video gives these crazy theories that unfortunately many people believe, with very vague evidence that is stretched so far beyond reality. It is a simple scam to give people "evidence" to fight against the left.
2) It is easy to see that this website is extremely pro right. I went to an article called "TRUMP ADDS JOBS WHILE DEMS COMPLAIN". This website really is full of just pro trump, to where they will blur the facts to where it all points pro trump. And, if it is at the expense of democrats it is even better.
The Hill
1) The Hill does seem to lean right. The article I choose to read was "THE MEMO: For Trump, an early test of leadership". This article has well thought out structure, with real facts to back them up. This article does use the facts to paint Trump in a positive light, but not outrageously so.
2) Now. I was interested in an article. "Trump camp could have fallen into 'backdoor' surveillance". This article defends Trump's claim that he was wire tapped. Although, it uses facts to show that he COULD have been wire tapped. All through a legal process. Now, while it does not stretch the truth to ridiculous levels, it does provide theories that do not feel quite right.
The New York Times
1)"Trump lets Key Offices Gather Dust". I enjoy how this article brings people from both sides of the political spectrum to comment on the vacancies in office. It does not focus on just a Republican view, or a Democratic view. Also, this seems to be a just the news article. There is very little opinion or bias in the writing.
2) "2 Of A Farmer’s 3 Children Overdosed. What of the Third — and the Land?" This was a really interesting article that was not about politics. It is a story of hardship. Of a father losing his children to an addiction to opioids. This article is clearly meant to pull at American's hearts.
Natural News
1)"Facebook’s “fake news” crackdown is a deliberate attempt to destroy the independent media". This article really makes me smile. This website takes a good thing (that facebook is taking down fake news to keep it from being spread), and they somehow morph it into it being a bad thing. This website also stretches the facts to the absolute breaking point. Claiming that the fact checkers are out for their own personal gains.
2)"Woman accidentally cremated while still alive". This article of course caught my attention. Yet again, they use very vague facts. Also, the likely hood of a hospital pronouncing someone who is not dead as dead is very slim.
Huffington Post
1) "Tom Cotton Warns GOP Health Care Bill Could Put House Majority At Risk". This article is a very simple statement article. It simply states exactly what Tom Cotton says, with very little analysis. But, it does go into slight detail about how the Democrats can lose House Majority. That by voting for an unpopular bill (that won't pass anyway), that Democrats will not be reelected into the House next voting season.
2) "HHS Secretary Tom Price Says ‘Nobody Will Be Worse Off Financially’ Under Obamacare Repeal". This article systematically tears apart this statement by Tom Price. Using very clear statistics and facts. This is a brilliant article because it does not use opinions, or stretch the truth. It is a very simple counter argument that shows the real truth.
Conclusion
The chart seems to hold up very well. With each of the sources being where the chart had them. With the best articles being in the center three columns. My favorite read being Info Wars, but not for anything reputable. I simply enjoy all the ridiculous theories they come up with. And what is amazing is that they do this with such little fact.
The New York Times and The Washington Post have quite a few similarities but are still very different. Unlike The Washington Post the NY times gives a substation amount of information about what's going on in society today. From politics to the environment to health and education the NY times is a news source that I will consider a top reliable news source. Not dis crediting The Washington Post, but when it comes to credibility The NY times wins every time. Receiving information through The Washington Post app news articles were lengthy but in my opinion still lacked information when compared to the NY times. The number one thing that I would say that are different between the two is the content at which it gives its readers. I would think that the news source that's been around the longest of course would have the more creditability. But I believe that the NY times is more credited because of its strong conservative editorial staff. Fox News and The Blaze are along the same lines when it comes to the amount of information given on each specific story. The Blaze in my opinion is more "piggy back off of" type news. The majority of the news I saw on The Blaze was almost exact if not the same as FOX News. Fox News brings the news as well as what's to potentially come. If gives its audience the news that matters and impacts our every day lives. The Huffington Post and The Atlantic are both news sources I wouldn't take as my main news source. Overall the news sources that were placed in its respective category was pretty accurate.
ReplyDeleteI picked Natural News, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Red State.
ReplyDeleteNatural State: I went to the website but it did not make me curious to explore. I guess it is because of their old design and lots of their articles are related to science. I think that this can be effective to target the specific people like science field. I could understand that this news is in the list of “Don’t read this” on the handout. And they have some kinds of science related ads on the website and it included disgusting photos. “Facebook’s “fake news” crackdown is a deliberate attempt to destroy the independent media” caught my eyes since we talked a lot about fake news, however, personally I did not enjoy reading it.
The Huffington Post: I think I feel more familiar with The Huffington Post because I read them in Japanese and their articles are often share on the social media. As I went to their website, they had one news on the top spotlighted. Compare to The Washington Post and The New York Times which I think those cover more serious issues or things like politics, world news and business…etc. But when you go to The Huffington Post, you are able to select any kinds of sections you want to read but those are more focused on entertainment, lifestyle and even video. I thought they might be trying to target younger people who are not used to read newspapers. But I think I like it because it can encourage young people who are away from conventional media to read and know things going on around them.
The Washington Post/The New York Times: I think that The Washington Post and The New York Times have similar style. On the home page of both websites, it displays lots of the news and it more looks like the newspaper since you are able to read the summary of the article without clicking it. It is very useful for people who do not have much time to read all the news. In fact, it really helped me to pick the topic to read. And even though if you do not click the headline to read full article, because you get to read the summary without doing so, you still gain more information.
Red State: I could really agree that Red State is one of the conservative media. The reason why I felt that is not because of what they report, I think it was more about how they report or tell the news. They did not include their views much and in all the topic I read had lots of references in the article. I felt like Red State was trying to provide more information and facts related to the topic and encourage reader to think about it. And their article is not really opinionated.
After finding those characteristics for each ones, I think the chart on the handout is quite accurate.
For my news sources, I chose to investigate The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Fox News, Addicting Info, and The Blaze. On Sunday, March 12th it seemed like the news sources were reporting the same information about the new Obamacare Repeal bill, with both the Huffington Post and Fox News having similar headlines. The most reliable of all, The New York Times, also had a similar story and article about the Obamacare Repeal, though it was not the main story of the front page but over to the right side in smaller font. Over on the biased/partisan side, The Blaze and Addicting Info both shared similar news stories as well, like the GOP representative from Iowa making racist remarks and receiving heavy backlash. But while The Blaze and Addicting Info both made this story one of their top headlines, I could only find reports on this when I scanned pretty deeply into the smaller fonts on The New York Times and The Huffington Post pages , possibly showing a bit of partisan on Fox News’ end since it didn’t appear even in the most miniscule stories.
ReplyDeleteWhile sifting through the different news outlets and comparing them side by side, I can identify where they line up in terms of partisan towards Republicans or Democrats. As I stated earlier, while The Huffington Post (which leans towards the Left) did report on the GOP Representative from Iowa making racist remarks, Fox News (which leans towards the Right) did not. Articles about another important news story covering Senator John McCain and others speaking out about President Trump’s wiretapping claim were covered on both websites, but they take different angles on the story. While the Huffington Post headline reads, “ McCain Calls Trump’s Bluff: Prove Obama Wiretap Claim, or Retract It”, Fox News gives it a different and perhaps gentler spin: “Cotton, Schiff doubt Justice will meet Monday deadline about evidence on Trump’s wiretap claim.” With both The Blaze, which is heavily partisan towards the Right, and Addicting Info, which is heavily partisan towards the Left it wasn’t hard to see which side they supported. The Blaze covered more conservative-interest stories, such as a headline that reads, “Liberals claim new Ferguson video exonerates Mike Brown in police shooting; it doesn’t” while Addicting Info did cover more liberal-interest stories, but their headlines were a bit riskier, such as “Clueless Trump Unaware Top Advisor Was Foreign Agent, says White House.” My conclusion is that the handout chart we received in class hit the nail on the head with these news sources.
Comparison of several different news media it wasn't a piece of cake for me. Unfortunately, as a person from another country, I am not so deep in story nuances, and at the beginning, I didn’t notice many differences. I decided to make investigation around the topic which I know. I was looking for news about Poland, and then I found high contrasts. Furthermore, I would estimate if news are accurate or not.
ReplyDeleteI compared:
InfoWars, Fox News, Addicting Info, CNN, New York Times
During searching articles about Poland at InfoWars website, I noticed articles: “Did Global Elite Kill Polish President Kaczynski?” On 10th April 2010 Polish President Kaczynski with political elite had an airplane crash in Smolensk, and all people died. In this article, there was a conspiracy theory that airplane’s catastrophe was a planned attacked. What is more, they indicated that the reason for this attack was a Polish rejection to taking part in “international bankster cartel” (March 29, 2010) shortly before the catastrophe. They claimed that Polish president died because he didn’t share approach to international policy. The news company shouldn’t spread unconfirmed information.
In the CNN news, I found the interview about Polish President Kaczynski between the journalist and Georgian President. In this conversation, the reporter emphasized that: “Polish people liked him, even political foes liked him.” That’s completely untrue. A lot of people in Poland didn’t like this president, and opponents hate him a lot. The Polish prime minister and president weren’t able to cooperate each other because they were from opposite parties. So CNN also aroused my doubt about fairness. Other articles about Poland are mainly about sport. They skipped significant events from my country. I agree that CNN is very general and sensational.
Next, I choose Addicting Info website, and I searched keyword Poland. Unfortunately, I find only one article: “Married Mother Of Nine Accuses Priest Of Rape, Church Helps Him Flee To Poland (VIDEO).” There was no information about serious events concerning my country. Articles are weak and unconfirmed.
On Fox News I found over a dozen articles connect with Poland. The articles concerns Poland in UE, the presidential airplane crashed, even that Polish government offers social benefits for disabled newborn and “Poland to limit media access to politicians in parliament.” What is more the content it was quite neutral for me, but Fox News provides only essential facts about events without in-depth development and investigation. I don’t feel if Fox News supports Polish government actions or not. Maybe in some factors Fox News may be reliable a source of information for example about event from other countries.
The last one I choose New York Times. There are fewer articles about Polish events than in Fox News, but they are much genuinely development. I found articles which indicate serious problems in Poland concerning new government. I notice that they have good knowledge about internal systems and connections between politics. For example, it was mentioned that the head of the conservative political party has real power in Poland, and he manages our prime minister and president. Only this magazine noticed that. I felt that NEW YORK TIMES pejoratively describe current Polish government and I think that they pay attention to freedom and democracy values. So in my opinion, The New York Times clearly presents their point of view about Polish situation. They more support liberal approach in Poland and they were against my government actions.
Summary
InfoWars - sensational, conspiracy theories
Fox News - a lot of information, in some context may be reliable
Addicting Info - definitely “Don’t read this”, mainly trash news
CNN - general, sensational, no important facts
New York Times - mainstream, deep articles but only important facts, a bit more liberal for me
I decided to follow the more common sources of news for most people such as The Washington Post, The NY Times, Fox News, MSNBC and the Huffington Post. From what I found out was that if you were looking for news, just actual news I found myself looking into NY Times and the Washington Post. I found that NY Times and Washington Post usually covers a story with limited amount of bias and usually just puts out the news that matters, the mainstream stuff. I also looked into Fox News and MSNBC, I found that these two sources give out a lot of information but you can't fully rely on what they are saying and calling it news. If you have a lot of information about something, these 2 news sources are a good way of confirming a news story since they pump out a lot of info, but you still have to be cautious about the content of the news. Huffington Post is in a lot of ways similar to Fox News and MSNBC, I believe that these news sources are good to confirm your suspicion on a certain news story, but not everything you read is reliable. I'm sure a lot of the big news sources try to keep neutral and not takes sides. I would have to say that NY Times and Washington Post are more neutral when reporting news than a lot of the other news sources, and Fox definitely leans towards the conservative side. I find that MSNBC is more liberal, they tend to favor certain ideas that Fox News wouldn't and Fox news tend to feed people news that is at times, in my opinion, questionable so I can't rely on it as much. The Huffington Post, I believe tries to do the best it can to not be bias, but occasionally you can notice it leans a little liberal when giving out news. However, it is also a place that you should use to confirm your suspicion, rather than have it as your main source of news.
ReplyDeleteThe news outlets I chose to do my assignment over were The New York Times, The Huffington Post, CNN, Infowars, and Occupy Democrats. Overall for good reliable information, I feel like the New York Times and CNN were the best sources of information. The New York Times was definitely a step above CNN in providing me with lengthy articles that were based on factual information with good source information. I felt like I could read most anything in this news paper with no doubt that what I was reading was “fake news”. The same principle applies to CNN. This new outline just seemed to be lacking in the in-depth information that The New York Times provided me. It was definitely better for on the go updates through my phone. If there was anything I wanted to follow up on and get more information I could look for it via The New York Times of even The Washington Post. Both news sources, The New York Times and CNN seemed to lack any bias, just the news. When reading articles on The Huffington Post, I found many more opinionated articles and what seemed like gossip or even quizzes. Anything I read on this site seemed to be a bit biased based on what journalist wrote the article. Like the chart described, it seems to be left leaning. I could grab certain articles from here but not for news purposes. They do a good job of grabbing the audiences attention and they seem to be looking for a certain type of reader. Not a horrible source of news but not top tier. Now, I read articles from Infowars and Occupy Democrats and things took an interesting turn. I am not a conservator person, I’ve fairly liberal so reading the (garbage) information on Infowars was ridiculous. This is not even a mild bias, it is completely right-leaning site that is based on conspiracy theories and scare tactics to get people who lean this way to click on the sight. Plus, I watched a few of the videos by the host, Alex Jones, and the man seems to have a mental health issue. He is completely off his rocker. I could never take a news source like this seriously. I have to admit that I have read articles on Occupy Democrats before this assignment but I have always tried to look up the claims before believing them. But, looking at it from this point of view and can see where it is skewed to the left and working to be a bias confirming site. I will not continue to get information from the site because I cannot afford as a citizen to be swayed so harshly by a “clickbait” site. I can see where Infowars and even Occupy Democrats could be considered “fake news.” The chart given looks to be pretty accurate.
ReplyDeleteI chose NPR, Addicting Info, The Blaze, The Fiscal Times, and The Atlantic. All five news outlets seemed to cover most of the same stories. However, you can tell that they all focused on different things. The story I chose to focus on was the health care reform. Fiscal times and the Atlantic focused on both sides of an argument and developed their side of the side on the facts they had. Addicting info and The blaze just slammed the opposite side of the argument with insults and a lot of opinion. They were very few facts to be found. NPR was strictly fact based and was also multi-faceted. It didn't just focus on one group of people when it came to how the health reform would affect Americans. Facts were definitely left out of the blaze and addicting info. Most of their pieces were primarily slam pieces that reflected the side that they represented. You could tell that addicting info was most definitely identified with the far left. There were stories referring to republicans with profanity and praising democrats (like Bernie) with strong adjectives. The Blaze was only slightly less biased than addicting info, but still incredibly right. It didn't use as strong language when it came to describing democrats, but the malice was still in the articles. The Atlantic and The fiscal times definitely did research and paid attention to the details. Their articles were well articulated and bias wasn't super prevalent, but it was only a minor underlying theme that you had to dig for. NPR didn't have any notable bias in any of the articles. It was straight facts and a few "this is how things could happen on the facts we have." You could definitely tell that all five news outlets lined up with where they were on the chart. I feel like if the chart was expanded even further, it could be even more accurate with all the news outlets.
ReplyDeleteOut of the five news sources I've read, I would say the most reliable one was the New York Times. They mainly stick to just their facts in their stories. They are very good at not having a bias towards conservative or towards liberals. They stay right in the middle with their facts. They do have an opinion page but that it clearly labeled so you don't get it confused with the other stories.
ReplyDeleteFOX News: I was watching FOX News the other night on tv. Even though I view myself as a Republican, I would not use this news source to get any of my information from. It does have a more conservative side and leans to the right. I believe they can start a story well, but eventually they stop focusing on the facts and focus on their view points and then debate it. I think with all that going on you've taken the spotlight off of the story and focused more on themselves.
Huffington Post: Huffington Post isn't a bad news source, but it's also not the most reliable. I think the Huffington Post is like FOX News for the liberal side. Their website was a little confusing as well. Under the news part of their website, several articles popped up that did not seem that important. Some of them were decent stories, but the rest seemed like they almost missed their deadline so they just wrote something. After reading some of their stories I thought the set up was here's the story, here's our opinion, and this is why it's a problem. I don't think so much of their opinion should be fed through the news.
CNN: CNN is an okay news source. I would describe it as average at best. CNN is pretty good at staying in the middle when it comes to conservative and liberal view points. They tend to have decent stories as well. However a lot of their stories miss some detail. They give the big picture of what's going on, but they don't describe themselves very well.
Natural News: I had never heard of Natural News so I decided to look it up. When I found their website, I became overwhelmed. There was so much going on and it was their home page. I noticed that the website did say they were liberal so I knew it would learn to the left side but I didn't suspect it would learn as far as it does. At the top of the website it said, "The worlds top news source on natural health." So I knew that the audience attracted to this would be interested in health. As a mentioned before, the website looked very cluttered. I didn't find a top news article either. It had a list of mostly viewed articles, but it didn't seem like there was a top story to this. I found several tiny articles, but I couldn't find a main story. I wasn't very impressed with this news source.
Conclusion: I believe the chart is extremely accurate when it comes to where news sources stand.
Over the period of these two weeks I have figured out that all news sources do not cover all information. Some news sources leave out certain facts or just give some of the story. I was following the NY times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox news and the natural news.
ReplyDeleteI found out that Washington Post and NY times are the most reliable news. When you use these two news sources you should know you are getting deep in depth facts. Also, you don't need to read the entire article just to get the point of the story. Usually, the lead or first paragraph gives all information.
With CNN I realized that it gives you facts but not all of the facts like NY times. I also realized that they tend to make you believe one side instead of you choosing. Lastly, I noticed how the facts they are providing aren't as important.
The news on Fox News is presented as it comes. I feel like they don't try to make you decide whats right or wrong. Also, Fox we deal with every day and it deals with our everyday life.
Natural news is one news source I have never heard of before. I see why it is marked do not read. However, it is a good news source for maybe science junkies if it is a reliable source. Lastly, it targeted a younger audience that likes science.
Starting with the farthest right of the mediums I was given I chose RedState. Right off the bat I realized that it was a blog and had many opinions placed throughout the entries. In today's entry, Nonsense; Sean Hannity Whining Ensues, the writer called a certain "deep state" conspiracy theory garbage. While it could possibly be the case (who knows), the opinion of someone displaying news is not needed. It is up to the audience to decide how they feel about the news they read. By having skewed opinions, the audience is being persuaded to react in the same way. There are defenses put up when one writer talks about how SNL "attacks" Ivanka Trump on their show. It's not the best website for news. I would not read it anymore if I had the choice.
ReplyDeleteNext I went in the opposite direction, hitting the farthest left of the liberal spectrum. I chose Occupy Democrats for this one. Going to the home page, I saw how liberal and while opposite of political views toward the RedState conservative page, they seemed to act the same way in their writings. The authors of each submission tend to use "Humiliated, Ruthless, Eviscerated," and the list goes on. It is also an opinionated website. In a story posted today, the author writes about Kellyanne Conway and how she is an "embarrassment." Again, this website is just like the previous one in the last paragraph, biased and opinionated. There's also a hearty amount of click bait surrounding the posts as you are attempting to read. I found a similar article about the SNL sketch making some fun at Ivanka and was the complete opposite of the way the RedState site did it. They still formed their own opinion and applauded SNL for their work. This website is also too much of a weird thing. I would not read this either.
The Wall Street Journal does its best to keep an unbiased tone. It is different from most I have seen, containing stocks. When it came to reading articles, I was stopped after the first two sentences, only letting me continue if I subscribed to the website. One article I was able to access was about how baby boomers ruined America, as stated by a Generation X novelist. The article attempts to reach all audiences and appeal to all as well. Not trying to step on many toes along the way. The website definitely likes to write about how the stock is doing and how it is affecting the people, businesses and so on.
I went to Huffington Post next. I could see their liberal side a bit when looking through articles to chose from. There are some that still pay attention to Obama and his family, as well as complimenting them. They don't just cover politics excessively. Huffington has certain appealing things to individuals to make them stop and read more. There are plenty of stories over little girls and boys doing cute things, movies and boxoffices, as well as other stories galore. I would read this on occasion but not for responsible news.
Lastly I used the New York Times. This paper/site is careful about how they write the news. They definitely attempt to avoid from hurting their revenue from anyone. It is definitely the better of all I have read on. There is no clear opinion stated and is left for the reader to attempt to come to their own conclusion.
From looking at all of these sites and the paper given to us, I believe that this paper is very accurate.
The chart proved to be quite accurate. The News in the middle is so much more professional and fact driven than sources in the far left and right. I have been watching news from The New York Times, Fox news, The Huffington Post, Natural news, and The Blaze.
ReplyDeleteDespite it's recent popular slander from President Trump, The New York Times actually seemed like a pretty good source of news to me. It provided the facts and what I believe was mostly the entire story without leaving out certain details to persuade it's audience. On the contrary, The blaze was pretty much just awful. It seemed so focused on it's right winged ideas, the news is shaped to fit it's right winged ideas and accusations of what the liberals are doing wrong. Natural News was the same way. It is pretty awful and is more opinion based than fact based at all. The Huffington Post was pretty decent. You can tell that it falls more left, but it still at least provides facts and is actual news unlike the previous two sources mentioned.
I decided to follow NY Times and the Huffington Post; I would recommend NY Times if you where looking for actual news and not just one leaning more towards the right or more towards the left. The Huffington post is a good news source too but it's not as neutral as The NY Times. It's a good source to use when trying to confirm something. Overall I'll go with The NY Times post because it's very neutral which is the best part about it. It gives you the option to come up with your on opinion on certain subjects in the paper.
ReplyDeleteIn this assignment I compared CNN, New York Times, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The Huffington Post. Many of the topics involved president trump of course, but I got a variety of statements and facts through these different news sources. Reading the New York Times I realized that the information they write about is supported by many resources. The New York Times was neutral on a lot of there topics,and they weren't too left or right. There statements seemed very factual, and reliable to be honest. I learned that CNN along with Fox News were very left or right on certain topics, they emphasized. They are very partisan bias newsources. The Wall Street Journal news were very lengthy, but I agreed with the statement "Great in-depth sources of news" , Yes you have to read a lot but you get a lot out of it. You learn a lot of interesting news facts. I would say they are a conservative news source.The Huffington Post compared to the other four news source touched on a variety of different topics & they were very diverse, and very Liberal. I really enjoyed the New York Times out of all of the news sources. I think I will start paying attention to that specific news source more. I do believe the chart provided was very accurate on many of the news sources, and opinions they had on many of them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the liberal side, I chose to review The Huffington Post and MSNBC's coverage on the Obamacare repeal failure. Both of these sites revealed a lot of the same material as the other. Both had the same direct quotes by Mick Mulvaney from his interview with "Meet the Press". The both also posted Trump's tweet on each site. It did appear that MSNBC gave a little more coverage on this topic by providing four different videos for viewers to watch where the Huffington Post only gave one. Also just by reading each post MSNBC gave more of a background on the story than the Huffington Post.
ReplyDeleteOn the Conservative side, I chose Fox News and The Hill. While Fox News gave an in-depth coverage of the Obamacare failure, The Hill concentrated its post more to mocking Fox News and unveiling the truth of Trump's whereabouts over the previous weekend. Althouh the Hill also covered the story of the Obamacare repeal failure,it focused more of its attention to outing a false tweet made by Fox News than it did on the actual Obamacare repeal failure.
From the middle Spectrum, I chose to review BBC News. I have this news app on my phone and love the coverage it gives over each story it posts. BBC covered the story very well and gave 3 different videos for it's viewers to watch discussing the Obamacare repeal failure. They provide coverage of this topic along with the coverage of similar stories as well that tie into the obamacare repeal. They gave specifics on the subject such as the number of republicans that opposed the repeal along with others. After reading the posts from each of these news outlets I find the chart to be accurate.
In my opinion BBC being the best of the five it gave the most legitimate coverage on a neutral ground and gave information the other four did not. It also did not use much of the same info as the others did. They went in depth with their coverage making their story much more informative than the other news sites did.
Its a great pleasure reading your post.Its full of information I am looking for and I love to post a comment that "The content of your post is awesome" Great work.
ReplyDeleteConservative news