Depending on which news source you access, you're always bound to get different results. The Boston Globe, for example, might highlight some of the better aspects of Obama's campaign. Whereas other sources, such as Fox News, will trail another particular candidate a little more closely. These differences in what the media chooses to portray and how it portrays it extends much further than simple domestic measures, however.
For example, on close examination of CNN.com I found that there wasn't a single article that referred to Darfur as 'genocide'. In fact, there weren't even two pages worth of information on Darfur. The most I was able to find was a Student News learning activity on the "crisis" in Darfur. In comparison to sites such as Save Darfur, which boldly proclaim the "crisis" as genocide on the very front page, Cnn is disappointment.
This bias in the media, which is almost always overlooked, leads you to wonder: what else are we glossing over? What else aren't we hearing about? And most importantly: why aren't we hearing about these important events? Certainly the mass murder in Sudan is newsworthy.
Who has the power over these networks to constrict the information that is given to the public?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Casey! This is awesome! This is exactly how to use evidence effectively - and you analyzed the evidence you found and shared the process you went through.
Post a Comment