An Analysis of the Biases in the Media in United States

These days, there are numerous media resources from a vast range of backgrounds and places. With such diversity, the media is often accused of bias when reporting news stories. Is this media bias truly occurring? To find out, three resources—an unbiased source, a conservative resource, and a liberal resource—were consulted for their coverage of the same story. These articles were analyzed and compared, to deliver an answer to this pressing question.

To ascertain whether the media exhibits bias, a popular yet contentious news story had to be selected.

The story of 3D-printed guns provides an ideal example for examination. This story discusses a diverse group of individuals fabricating weapons or weapon parts conveniently and privately in their homes using 3D printers. Given that the narrative also promotes discourse about anyone being able to own a gun, it inadvertently coerces the news sources to reveal their stance on gun laws. This element makes it straightforward to assess each media source's bias toward the situation.

The first media source reviewed is The New York Times, which is commonly perceived as a neutral source. Objectivity is highly conspicuous in their article, as no clear stance on gun laws is expressed. The author mainly provides the readership with the facts and figures related to the story. The only indication of a perspective on gun laws emerges in the interviews with those involved. Instead of emphasizing the potential chaos of people printing guns en mass, or how this issue is being blown out of proportion, the author focuses on the impracticality of printing guns. The New York Times astutely chooses a less controversial tangent to avoid offending anyone's views and remains impartial. Henry Fountain, the author, highlights how 3D-printed guns are "about as likely to kill the gunman as the target," and how 3D printers "are slow, often taking hours to build an object, and the results [...] can be too crude for very close-fitting parts" (Fountain). These points neither delve into the rights nor wrongs of owning guns but rather illuminate the reality of 3D printers, which most other sources barely touch upon. This resource effectively offers a neutral perspective while still providing the readers with the facts.

On the other hand, the next resource, American Prospect, offers a clear liberal stance and attempts to influence visitors to agree with their position on a given circumstance. The author, Paul Waldman, uses a tone of voice and style of composing that is overtly anti-gun. In the very first sentence of his piece, he writes, "What happens when you can make as many weapons as you want with your 3-D printer?" (Waldman). This prompts the readers to answer this hypothetical question by suggesting something along the lines of mass murders resulting from 3D printing weapons. From the start, the readers are steered towards the view that guns are terrible, irrespective of the context. The article then discusses how easy it is to obtain a 3D printer and how they "will be as common a household appliance as microwave ovens," suggesting that individuals with malicious intentions may easily acquire guns (Waldman). Waldman also points out that once the printer is purchased, it is extremely cheap to start printing guns: "[It would] cost you probably five or ten dollars for the materials, and that's it. Why not make a hundred of them?" (Waldman). Again, a clear anti-gun sentiment is conveyed to the readers, suggesting the prospect of more guns falling into the hands of the wrong people. Finally, Waldman plays on the readers' emotions and unsettles them with a concluding statement about printing guns: "the possibilities are pretty frightening" (Waldman).

The last media source, The Economist, offers a contrasting conservative view on the 3D printed guns issue and focuses on their belief that the situation is exaggerated. The author includes pro-gun statements throughout the article, with the only anti-gun sentiments coming from interviews with individuals involved. After the backdrop to the story is provided, the author comments, "Some of that fear might be overblown," when discussing anxieties over unregulated gun printing (Ready, print, fire). For the remainder of the article, examples and arguments accommodating this position are explored. The author suggests that "homemade guns are nothing new," and in regards to a ban on printed guns, argues that "implementing a ban when anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer can make them" is practically impossible (Ready, print, fire). This article provides a simple, conservative message, encouraging readers not to be overly concerned about the relatively minor issue of people printing guns.

With the analysis of one story covered by three different sources, prejudice is obviously present in resources that are generally liberal or conventional. These resources appear to have a clear side on the gun control scenario. They seem to wish for the reader to align with their viewpoint by utilizing a particular tone and providing select examples. In contrast, the neutral source offered no clear stance on gun control. This allowed The New York Times to provide a highly detailed article, offering much more information than the other resources. Numerous quotes from both sides of the debate, along with useful data, were made available to the readers in this neutral article. As can be seen, there is a wide array of news sources, all of which have their unique views on media stories. While only one story was assessed here, it stands to reason that sources have differing viewpoints on topics across all journalism.

Did you like this example?

362

19