Evaluating Sources

The Ad Fontes Interactive Media Bias Chart and AllSides Media Bias Chart are my starting points in terms of finding sources that regularly display a partisan-leaning in their reporting. That said, I'm well-aware that not every story that comes from a certain source will be inundated with bias, so I am not choosing the articles that I feature solely on where they were published. Instead, I will evaluate the article's headline and content for language and framing that skews toward one side or the other of the political spectrum. An equal number of headlines left, right, and center headlines will be featured in each post. If I believe that a particular organization's report exhibits signs of partisanship, I will explain my reasoning in my analysis. I welcome any debate about my judgment of partisanship in the comments of each post!

Comments

On the Facebook Whistleblower Testifying to Congress

Last week, former Facebook employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen testified to a Congressional subcommittee that the company knows how to make its platform safer and prevent the spread of misinformation, but has decided not to in order to boost its profit margins. Here are the takes of various media outlets on the situation: Tends to skew right: Fox News: Whistleblower says Facebook is a US 'national security issue' This article focuses on the reported threat to America’s security that Facebook poses, which caters to the priorities to right-wing readers by centering the United States’ and its citizens' interests. The statements made by the Facebook whistleblower to Congress are featured predominantly through the article, with her claims of Iran’s espionage and Facebook’s “understaffing of the counter-espionage information operations and counterterrorism teams” mentioned early on. It notes the “rare bipartisan fashion” of the hearings and the desire of both parties to r...

On the Kabul Airstrike Investigation's Findings

In August, I wrote my second post on the media coverage of the airstrike conducted by the US targeting a suspect ISIS-K member responsible for planning the Kabul airport attack. At the time, the US government believed that it had successfully killed the target and was unaware of any civilian casualties. However, the Wall Street Journal article that I analyzed included original reporting that contradicted the government's comments. Now, the government has released the findings of its investigation into the strike, confirming that it did not in fact kill any ISIS-K members and that ten Afghan civilians were innocent victims of the attack. This week, I have analyzed the same three sources that I used in that second post to see how their reporting on the government's findings compares to their initial reporting on the airstrike. Tends to skew right: Fox News: “General says it is unlikely ISIS-K members killed in August Kabul drone strike: 'A tragic mistake'” The biggest ...

On the US Lifting Restrictions on International Travelers

This week, restrictions on travelers entering the US that have been in place since the beginning of the pandemic were lifted. Reactions have ranged from joy to disapproval. Here is how some major media outlets covered the news: Tends to skew right: Breitbart: Tears, relief, long lines as US reopens borders after 20 months This article’s headline emphasizes the duration of the border shutdown and the emotional impact on those who were stuck or had family stuck overseas. It is not politically biased though, mentioning that Trump imposed the bans in 2020 and that they have been upheld by Biden until this point. One aspect that makes this article worthwhile is the original reporting it includes. It features quotes from people who reunited with their family at airports around the US, specifically JFK and Dulles airports. This made for an effective exploration of the issue this article covers. Overall, the tone of this article was much more positive than past articles I’ve read from t...

A Balanced Take

Search This Blog