I found an interesting discrepancy in this morning's news. Much criticism has been aimed at Palin in the last few days, with many McCain supporters (and workers) leveling accusations at the running-mate that blame her for the loss of the presidential bid. If you haven't heard, these range from her apparently not understanding that Africa was a continent, which I have a very hard time believing, to being unprofessional with staff. She has finally begun speaking out against the accusations.
The Associated Press (AP) headline for this story is "Palin Denounces Anonymous Critics as 'Cowardly'" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26500628/). However, the New York Times (NYT) is entitled "Palin Calls Critics among McCain Aides 'Jerks'" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27602873/). What is interesting to me here is that both articles quote both lines. Yet, each author chose to emphasize one of the words in the headline.
The AP's choice of highlighting the word "cowardly" does not make Palin look like she is on the defensive. It is a much more neutral portrayal of the former VP candidate than the NYT's. Their choice to highlight her use of the word "jerk" does make Palin look bad. It is unstatesmanly to use this type of word and possibly highlights one of the reasons many felt Palin was unprepared for the job.
So when we look for bias in our research, it is important to notice not just which details are presented, because if we notice here, most of the details are the same in the two articles. Instead, we should also pay attention to which details are highlighted, in bigger type, towards the top of the article, included in captions, etc. That emphasis often will reveal an author's perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment