Mindful News Media in Political News Bias

As citizens and individuals, it is a privilege to participate in the political process and be aware of what’s going on around us. In order to be involved, we have to know what’s going on. So, where do we get our information from? The media. Thanks to the First Amendment, there is a vast world of information. A world, some question as being politically bias and not stating just the facts. As PBR broadcaster Brooke Gladstone writes in her book, “Sure, the media are beset by biases, but they’re probably not what you think.”

In an interview with Jon Stewart on Fox News, host Chris Wallace confronts John on a statement he had made on his show about the Fox News Network being a “biased organization, relentlessly promoting an ideological agenda…” In counter-argument, Wallace points out other news media such as ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and New York Times should be held responsible for the same accusations. In the argument that the media is a liberal bias holds some truth. In this interview, Jon talks about the existence of a political bias in media. He goes on to explain that because of the medium in which media exists, it’s hard not to reveal a liberal aspect. This holds truth to the liberal wing of news but in the conservative case, they forcibly push their news rather than holding integrity.

Brooke Gladstone, in her book The Influencing Machine, doesn't necessarily defend liberal bias news but rather argues that more important biases should be noted by the people.  For example, a TV news program such as O’Reilly factor will argue that the media has a liberal bias when it comes to reporting issues. For example, in a news interview with Cornell West and Tavis Smiley, O’Reilly argues that Tavis Smiley’s news special on PBS about poverty supports socialism. Bill believes that poverty is not an economic problem but rather a social problem and a personal responsibility. He argues presenting statistics that show that 15% of America is in poverty and 9% of Americans are substance abusers, in which they cannot hold jobs. In his defense, Tavis argues that it’s a political responsibility to take care of our citizens and its uprising before it takes over us. Bill O’Reilly’s argument is a classic example of Gladstone’s Bad News Bias, plaguing a fear of socialism and assuming those that are poor are actually substance abusers. To note, throughout the interview Bill cuts off Tavis before he can answer his question and becomes angry because he heard Tavis say he “lies” when Tavis really said he was “right” about a subject. This is another example of Fairness Bias in Bill O’Reilly’s show in which he failed to present ideas equally.

As individuals, we have a brain, in which consists a mind. In this mind, there is this "element that enables us to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel. It's the faculty of consciousness and thought." Forever in sight of the media, we must be rational for the sake of the information being presented to us by the news. The underlying argument of news being politically bias is inescapable. The media entails free speech and in presenting the "facts" a journalist or reporter cannot help to infiltrate their ideologies in this constitutional right but it is our jobs as citizens to seek out what media is the actual truth of the matter, whatever the issue may be to us.

Work Cited

Gladstone, Brooke. The Influencing Machine: Brooke Gladstone on the Media. W. W. Norton & Complany Inc., 2011.

We Look Back As Our Troops Come Home

As Amelia has written, it is great news that our troops are coming home.  It’s not only great news for our troops and their families but for our economy. As she has stated, the government has spent trillions of dollars on this war but she wonders why. She also states that the Middle-East is “all about power” and questions the reasons behind our foreign affairs. Looking into how the Iraq war began and the objectives behind it, we can begin to understand Amelia’s questions.

First, in order to understand why we spent so much on the war, we must address the origins of the Iraq war in relation to foreign policy.  We can agree that the 9/11 attacks spurred governmental action to find the “bad guys,” but what started off as capturing the enemy in Afghanistan, spun action into another country based on a “hunch” that weapons of mass destruction were a threat and Al-Qaeda had ties with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  It turned out that the Bush Administration failed to provide evidence and the war regimen changed.  No more incentive for WMD but establishing a democracy in Iraq became the new plan. As the United States treaded the thin line occupying Iraq, we ended up putting ourselves against a graver danger erupting a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites and an insurgency against U.S. military. Only breaking out violence, the once objective to establish a democracy collapsed so the U.S. motive was to restore peace and security in a country complex with religious conflict. In Amelia’s statement claiming the Middle-East is “all about power” seems a bit rash. In dealing with this war and it’s specific region of Iraq, the government’s position to create democracy would seem to give Iraq “more power” but since this objective failed, the Middle-East, as a whole, will not sustain economically with its continued civil war with religion.

Now that we understand why we went to war, let’s talk numbers. The beginning proposal for our defense budget was advised to be around $100-200 billion. The Defense Secretary at the time believed it to be only $50 billion but as our debt shows, we have spent over trillions of dollars funding a war with not much to show. Did you know that for every brave soldier killed in Iraq, the family received a check of $500,000? What frustrates me is that the cost of this war will never compensate for the lives taken because of this war. My brother is a U.S. Marine and he came back safely from his tour in Afghanistan but some of his fellow soldiers did not. Even arriving back alive from this war, the mental effects of this war on our soldiers is not healthy.

Eliminating this full-fledged war presence in countries, considering different approaches to stopping terrorism, and restoring peace is necessary for not only the U.S. economy but the welfare and safety of other countries. By President Obama announcing our troops coming home, Obama’s administration platform on foreign policy seems tactful rather than tacky.