The Instances of Media Bias during the 2000 Elections

Is the media predisposed? Many people, including myself, believe that it is. However, there are individuals who argue that the media is devoid of prejudice and merely reports the facts. Such individuals, for example my father, maintain the belief that everything portrayed on television is necessarily true, based on my personal experience. Bias is often discernible in media, whether in print or broadcast, ranging from the most subtle hints that often go unnoticed to more overt manifestations. The fact is that bias is ubiquitous and challenging to disentangle.

I struggle to articulate exactly why this is the case, but it could relate to the fact that everyone in the world possesses unique perspectives and opinions, which, somehow or another, become reflected in their speech or writing. The purpose of this paper is to examine potential bias in the media, focusing specifically on coverage of the 2000 Elections, and search for bias in news media articles relating to the Presidential candidates. I centered my study on seven consecutive daily articles published by CNN, evaluating each for aspects such as event coverage, policy proposals, characterization and the overall tone of the articles.

My conclusion was that CNN demonstrated bias towards Al Gore. I base this assertion on several observations. I perceive the structuring of the articles and the linguistic choices used to describe Al Gore as negatively-toned, whereas a favorable tone is used when describing George W. Bush. Additionally, discussions surrounding policies seemed to have a negative bias when Al Gore was the subject.

At the outset, I should highlight that each article invariably starts on a positive note by summarizing the day's basic activities. This brief introduction outlines the main highlights of the day, including key appearances. Generally, the articles cover the speeches and comments made by each candidate. However, the articles soon devolve into mutual candidate-bashing rather than focusing on the issues. They center more on what each candidate has to say about the other.

In five out of the seven articles, we see George Bush's activities discussed before those of Al Gore. Initially, I surmised that this was coincidental, with the author following an alphabetical order in presenting the article. However, upon examining the two articles that tackled Al Gore's actions first, I realized that this aspect carries significant weight in any written piece. Discussing George Bush first ensures his ideas are anchored in the reader's mind, and any subsequent discussion about Al Gore is inevitably compared to the preceding conversation about Bush. While this may not always be the case, I feel strongly about this particular observation. If a writer seeks to provide an unbiased presentation, both candidates' positions should be compared and contrasted throughout the piece as opposed to segregating it into two sections.

Next, words and phrases chosen to define the prospects' tasks imply predisposition towards Al Gore. In almost every post I located some words or expressions that offered the impression that George Bush was doing a good job and also Al Gore is battling. Some examples of words or phrases utilized to explain Al Gore's tasks are: "... two-pronged endgame of charming undecided votes (Last Pre. p. 1) "puzzling"( Presidential Candidates, p. 1), "roughly vital of Bush (Presidential Candidates, p. 2), "swung hard at bush"( Presidential Candidates, p. 3), "Gore wished to gnaw at on this leg ..."( Presidential Candidates, p. 4), "crawling back up towards Bush (Presidential Candidates, p. 2) and "proclaimed"( Gore Guarantees, p. 1).

While words or phrases to describe George Bush's Activities are: "unloaded on Gore"( Presidential Candidates, p. 1), "tore into his Autonomous competitor"( Presidential Candidates, p. 1) and expecting a Shrub win (McCaleb, Presidential Candidates, p. 1). I believe it is very easy to see by the choice of words that Al Gore is referred to as an animalist, brutish, as well as rough character while shrub is described as certain and also revered individual.

Last but not least, the conversation on policy was geared toward trading words in a boxing battle. Instead of taking a position and also reviewing what the "real" results of the policy proposals will certainly have if they had taken effect and allowing the viewers to make judgment regarding the much better of both proposals the posts prices quote comments made by both candidates towards each other and the result of the others proposals "will really have". Most of the write-ups estimated George Bush "bad mouthing" the character of Al Gore while Al Gore was stating his proposals misbehave. It is clear that support by this media is concentrated in the direction of the political election of George Bush. A few other instances that will assist make my factor are: they make an attempt to reveal that the Democrats are ending up being determined as well as "are extra willing to tailor his addresses" (McCaleb, Presidential Candidates, p. 2) will change their method due to the fact that it doesn't appear to function while Shrub never alters his technique to state that Gore will certainly do or state anything to win and there is a brief conversation of Bush's tax obligation strategy yet there is no conversation of Gore's tax obligation strategy.

To conclude, I wish that I have made my factor that the media is really prejudiced. It is in these refined however extremely dramatic steps that are used to imbed ideas in the minds of visitors. I ought to claim that there are non-profit organizations that state they offer impartial protection but can not always be too sure. The reality of the matter is that one of the largest news media resources is just one of one of the most prejudiced. CNN is seen my several individuals and also a good majority do not understand that they are not obtaining the whole reality that they deserve.

Did you like this example?

281

15