Both Sides of the Aisle

Sometimes when I want some entertainment (especially during a hot news story), I like to visit both CNN and Fox News' websites and compare the two. I don't get much time to watch television, so I get to read the news. I was not aware how close the government shutdown was until recently, but that is probably because it gets so close to happening you start to tune it out. I wanted to do this comparison because I see some of my peers posting that the media tries to report both sides of the story. I will say that in my experience I see the media doing that, but that does not mean there is not a slant to the story. Let us take a look at a CNN article about the budget situation. I promise it is not very long at all.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/30/first-on-cnn-moderate-house-republicans-working-to-line-up-votes-on-their-own-plan/?hpt=hp_t1

For your own consideration I will also post it here to save you time:

Washington (CNN) - Moderate House Republicans who want to fund the government with no strings attached are working to line up votes against a House GOP plan to renew federal coffers while chipping away at Obamacare, multiple GOP sources involved in the effort tell CNN.

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania, Rep. Peter King, R-New York, and others are feverishly making calls to stage what would effectively be a revolt.

They say they are hoping there are enough GOP members like them who are fed up with the tactics of the leadership that they can find enough votes to defeat the first procedural measure, known as the rule.

That would prevent the House GOP leadership from even bringing their plan up at all.

Given the makeup of the GOP caucus, these House Republican moderates would need in the ballpark of 20 Republicans to agree to defy their leadership, and be willing to face what will undoubtedly be the wrath of the conservative grassroots.

If you disagree with what I think I would like to hear your opinion in the comments. Personally I think it is hard to read this article and not see the slant that CNN seems to be putting on it. Just in the first paragraph, we can see "House Republicans...chipping away at Obamacare..." They are saying the Republican party is divided (which we know to be true based on what has been going on the last couple years). It then talks about how a representative wants to have what would be a "revolt". I find the idea laughable at this point. Is it too much to ask for a Congress that will actually act like mature adults and work on solutions instead of pouting for not getting their way and shouting no? 

Let us shift over and check out what is going on over at Fox News now. Here is the link to one of their articles on the subject:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/30/budget-showdown-test-wills-as-shutdown-deadline-comes-into-view/

Their article is a little bit longer so I'm not going to able to link it. If you're too busy to read I'll try and give you the highlights. Here is a quote from the article: 

The Senate earlier Monday rejected a GOP proposal that would delay the health care law by one year and repeal an unpopular medical device tax. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid warned Republicans not to fiddle with the spending bill any more. "As we said Friday, nothing has changed. If they try to send us something back, they're spinning their wheels," Reid said. 

Now, the wording of this statement would seem to lean against the Democratic controlled Senate. "The Senate rejected" It might not seem so bad, but in this context as the reader it seems to put them in a negative light. Then we have what seems to be a threatening statement from Harry Reid, that they are not willing to compromise. It could be true, yes, but the wording of it makes it seem very negative and tries to create sides to the story. 

On a side note, one of the things that confuses me most about the whole situation with the 'Obamacare' issue is the fact that this has already been passed by Congress. It was signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. Obama won the election again with his health care plan as part of his platform. Yet there are still those that do not want it. I fail to see the logic, but maybe that is just me. 

There is another passage I would like to take a look at. 

Democrats have already labeled this a "Republican government shutdown." But Republicans on Sunday hammered Reid and his colleagues for not coming back to work immediately after the House passed a bill Sunday morning.

This statement has two parts to it. The first is that it makes it seem like the Democrats are the only one blaming the other. The second is that it calls out the Democrats for not showing back up after a bill was passed. I have no problem with these things as long as they make sure to use the same language towards the other party as well. This issue is not simply to fault Republicans OR Democrats, it is something that they have BOTH caused and need to work together to fix. 

Attacking the Democrats...

While scanning the news for good articles to share with my peers, I happened to notice one about something Senator John McCain said. Here is the article, it isn't long at all but check it out. Now, this headline is certainly something that will grab your attention. "John McCain "We Are Dividing the Republican Party Rather Than Attacking Democrats" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/john-mccain-republican-party_n_4001786.html. For me, it makes me angry. But this blog posts are not the platform for political ranting, so I would like to try and break it down intellectually and use logic and rational thinking to break down why what he said is so wrong.

Let us talk about the headline first. To see it again, just look up, or check the article. As a voter who tries to support a candidate and not the party, seeing the rabid group mentality of the parties is disturbing and a trend I wish would stop. It does not seem like we have politicians who will stand on their own anymore, and instead will follow their parties rules and toe the line and not have a voice of their own. How can I honestly give my support to a candidate if they can't have their own voice? They should not be afraid to voice their opinion, especially when they should be voicing the opinion of their constituents in the first place. I think we have come to a sad time in American politics when people have to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. During the last Presidential election, I honestly did not fully support either candidate. So I voted for the one I thought would do the least damage to the country.

The next issue I have is the idea that the Republicans need to attack the Democratic Party. As a voter, this seems petty and does not make me want to support the Republican Party in future elections. I would rather see them trying to work together and find compromises. I want to see them offering their own plans and ideas as opposed to just simply opposing whatever the Democrats are doing. They are focusing so much on trying to fight Obama and the Democrats that the issues at hand aren't being solved. Regardless if they support 'Obamacare' or not, we cannot deny that we have a serious issue with healthcare in this nation. Instead of trying to find an alternative or come up with their own plan of action, their only idea seems to be lets just scream and shout as loud as we can about it until we can get rid of it. As a young voter this isn't the kind of thing I want to see my elected officials doing.

The Danger of Media Bias

I think as Political Science majors or as people who keep up with the news most of us know a little bit about George Zimmerman. Whether or not you agree with the outcome of his trial is a different story. As it stands legally, he is innocent as declared by a court of law. My issue is not with the verdict though. My issue lies with the media's response to the whole case in general. Some people question whether it would have went to trial if it had not been for the demand of the people and the negative response from the media. Are we living in a mob society now, where when the people scream for justice we must follow their demands? There seems to be a whole lot of gray area in the whole situation. Even with his acquittal, George Zimmerman can't seem to avoid making headlines. Over the past few weeks he responded to an accident to help, been pulled over for speeding a few times, and now his wife has called 911 on him.

This week I would like to focus on an article from Salon.com. Whether or not you think it is a legitimate news website is for you to determine. As far as I am concerned they have a large reader base and it is a bigger website. Articles like this one get thrown around a lot.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/take_his_guns_away_already_why_the_george_zimmermans_are_so_protected/

Now, I would take a moment to read through the article to see what you think about it before I start going through it. I'm guessing it did not take long to see what kind of stance the writer takes on George Zimmerman. While this isn't really a news article (at least I hope not) I keep like some of the comments are not rational. Granted, she does bring up some points about whether laws are right or not. But you have to remember it is the law. There were no charges brought up against George Zimmerman by his estranged wife, so what did the writer expect the police to do? By law he has rights to own guns. You can believe this is ok or not, but it is how it stands. His wife changed her story a few hours later, which hurts the credibility of it all. If something did happen or didn't, any further emergency calls of charges she might want to file will be harder to believe. Especially when she lied under oath in a courtroom during the trial.

As far as I believe I strongly doubt this will be the last time George Zimmerman's name makes a headline. He is a strong case for people wanting more restrictions on guns. While the man might be legally innocent, he is guilty in the minds of many people. The people's verdict was given long before the legal one was due to media responses such as the article I linked you to. Justified or not, we should not be branding a man guilty or innocent. That is not our job as a people.

Difference in Reporting

Two of the biggest news outlets that are out there right now are CNN and Fox News. When you are reading your daily news,  you would expect to read a very similar article about a story on both websites. However, both seem to have a different way of reporting some stories. This might not be the best example of it, but this is a very recent event that I was reading about so it is a bit more relevant. If you have read the news today, you might have heard Israel test fired a missile this morning in the Mediterranean. If you have not read the news today, then you can catch up on it now.

Here is the article from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/world/meast/mediterranean-missile/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

First thing I'd like to point out is the headline. 'Israel: Missile test-fired in the Mediterranean'. Now, no where in the headline does it mention that it was a joint venture with the United States. If you read the article though it mentions that it was in the first couple lines. Headlines are important though. A headline is there to interest the reader, and can set the tone for the article. A headline can be misleading, or sometimes not even completely accurate. In this case, it omitted that the U.S. was part of the missile firing. Instead of me explaining it, and to try and boost communication with readers, why do you think this is? Do you think it just happened like that? Or do you think that CNN did it for a reason? I'd like to know what you think.
Next, let us take a look at the article itself. The article seems to put a lot of emphasis that the U.S. was not involved in this missile test.

Here is the article from Fox News about the same news.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/03/russia-foreign-ministry-claims-two-ballistic-objects-fired-in-eastern/

This headline reads 'Israel says it carried out joint missile test with US in Mediterranean'. This headline includes the part about the U.S. being involved. I'll ask the same question here. Why did Fox News choose to include it, but CNN did not? This article seems to stress more U.S. involvement in the missile launch then CNN's article. Then it goes on to talk about the rocky U.S. and Russian relations. The CNN article did not mention this at all.

These articles both do the job of reporting the news, but is it without bias? Why do they choose to report the way they do? It is hinted and I am sure there is statistical data that Fox News' viewer base tends to be more conservative than the CNN viewer base. Is that why we see a difference in reporting? I'd like to think that is a possible explanation. With all the tensions brewing in Syria, there will surely be a lot more stuff to blog about as we draw closer to more conflict.