1. Do the journalists and pundits present more truth or truthiness? Provide examples of both false statements and true statements.
2. How well are the cable news channels’ fact claims supported by evidence? How often do the journalists and pundits provide their sources? How many fact claims are false? What information is omitted, distorted, or taken out of context?
3. Look for the silences and who’s in power. Which political voices and viewpoints are given precedence on these topics? Whose voices are ridiculed, left out, or downplayed? Do the sources cited reveal favoritism, partisan bias, or omission of relevant viewpoints?
4. Apply McManus’ SMELL test:
(McManus, 2012, 149-150)
(McManus, 2012, 149-150)
S: What is the SOURCE of the information?
M: What is the source’s MOTIVATION? “Is it merely informational, or perhaps an effort to sell us something?’
E: What is the EVIDENCE provided for the claims made in the story?
L: What is the LOGIC of the news report?
L: What is LEFT OUT or missing? Are sources identified? If anonymous sources are cited, does the story include “any independent, expert evaluation of the claims the anonymous sources made?”
Politics of Obama's gay marriage stance
(Brownstein, 2012)
In this video the journalist presents truth. What she says is fact, not opinion. Ron Brownstein of the National Journal and CNN's senior political analysts gives his opinion on how President Obama's declaration of supporting same-sex marriage could change his campaign. He makes claims about the democratic coalition has changed. He claims that the white electorate voters are dwindling away. He gives no evidence for any of that information. He uses words such as probably, dramatic and think. Brownstein seems to infer that it is only white conservative people that are against same-sex marriage. Brownstein does not give any evidence to this.
Graph from Pew Research, similar findings to Gallup graph on CNN
CNN provides the audience with information that is backed by a source, Gallup. The fact that they gave the audience their source allows the audience to fact-check. Once Brownstein begins talking that all flies out the door. The fact that he is from the National Journal should make him a liable source; but this interesting tid-bit that was just brushed over quickly changes things up a bit. HE WORKS FOR CNN! The audience is left to wonder which side he is talking for.
The whole video focuses on the liberal side. It is about Obama's positive stance on same-sex marriage so that is expected. The conservative voice is completely omitted from the article, and in fact Brownstein suggests that their votes are slowly disappearing.
What is the source of the information?
CNN uses a graph from Gallup. All other information is fed by Brownstein, who is a great source from the National Journal, but can be questioned because of his affiliation with CNN.
What is the source's motivation?
This video was trying to inform. No bad things were said about either political party. It was very informative about Obama's campaign and who Obama is trying to win.
What is the evidence?
The only evidence provided was the graph that showed that Americans are more accepting of same-sex marriage than before. No other evidence was given to support Brownstein's claims.
What is the logic of the news report?
The logic behind the coverage is to inform the public about Obama's positive stance on gay marriage and what that means for his campaign.
What is left-out or missing?
In this video there is no evidence given to support Brownstein's claims. It is a vital part of a factual video.
Perkins: Gay marriage not about rights
(Perkins, 2012)
In this video both Tony Perkins, Family Research Council president, and the CNN representative both say things of truth. Their biases exaggerate the truth about same-sex marriage. It is true that marriage is defined by the communion of a man and a woman. When the CNN representative says that the definition of marriage has continually evolved that is truthiness. As Perkins says, the definition of marriage has never changed. It has always stayed between a man and a woman. It is true that different legalities have taken place allowing inter-racial marriages.
Neither of the journalists or pundits provide their sources. The interview turns to be more of a heated opinion discussion rather than a sharing of facts. Both the journalist and pundit make claims without backing up their sources and proving their facts.
It is obvious that the journalist takes power over the conversation. She constantly interrupts Perkins to add her own point of view. Perkins tries to take a conservative precedence on same-sex marriage, but is attacked by the journalist. Her tone of voice is anger while Perkins tone is impatient. CNN acts biased towards a liberal point of view on same-sex marriage. Even when the journalist opens with "What is your main argument against same-sex marriage?" she starts the interview out on a negative tone. Perkins then answers that he is arguing for marriage.
What is the source of the information?
Neither the journalist or the pundit provide source information from where they got their facts. Although, Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Counsel and would be a good source for information on marriage.
What is the source's motivation?
The journalist tries to sell the audience to the liberal thinking of same-sex marriage. She doesn't let the opposite side of view say what he wants to say and wants the audience to hear. At the beginning of the interview she seems very negative toward Perkins before she hears what he has to say.
What is the evidence provided for the claims made in this story?
As with sources, there is no evidence provided for the truthfulness of either the pundit or the journalist. They seem to just be conversing rather than sharing actual facts.
What is the logic of the news report?
This news report wouldn't be the most logical news to get your actual news facts from. It is more of a news story filled with bias and opinion. It is interesting to see the different viewpoints of both the liberal and the conservative side. This video leaves the audience to have to search for facts and make decisions based on what he/she already knows.
What is left-out or missing?
The most blatant thing missing is the lack of evidence and sources. Both the journalist and the pundit spit out information without telling us how they know it. The audience is left guessing what the news actually was after watching it.
Polis: People should marry who they love
(Polis, 2012)
The CNN journalist interviews Rep. Jared Polis, an openly gay Democrat from Colorado, about Obama's decision to support same-sex marriage. I feel that Polis tries to be objective about same-sex marriage as he brings up the relationship between religion and state and government. Polis does not give any sources for his claims, and since he is a state representative he normally would be a good un-biased interview subject, but he is gay. This makes the article seem more "truthy" rather than truthful. Interesting to point out how this journalist, the same journalist in the Perkins report above, has a totally different attitude. She is non-interuptive, non-argumentitive, and very agreeing to Polis. Neither the journalist or pundit provide any evidence as to where they have received their facts. The journalist puts a map up from the Wall Street Journal Human Rights Campaign. Going to that website one sees that the Human Rights Campaign are same-sex activist. It's interesting their choice for this source, as the Human Rights Campaign would be biased towards same-sex marriage (Kwoh, 2012). Check it out for yourself.
--Human Rights Campaign WSJ
In this interview the power is given equally to both the journalist and the pundit. The conservative voice is shushed through the interview. Polis talks about how religion is stopping people from acting on what they actually believe, in equal rights for everyone. His opinion is very interesting considering he is actually gay and in the federal government. He expresses joy in Obama's statement and leaves out any opposing viewpoints on the matter. The journalist doesn't ask him any cons to allowing same-sex marriage and equal rights. Both the pundit and the journalist seem to be Pro-Obama in their political views.
What is the source of the information?
The source of the information in this report is Rep. Jared Polis. Polis is both gay and a democrat.
What is the source's motivation?
Polis's motivation to speak is to show America that Obama is on the right path in supporting same-sex marriage. Every one should have equal rights. Government has never been in charge of marriage, it has always been the states. Factual and biased information.
What is the evidence provided?
The only evidence provided is a map of the United States that shows which states support same-sex marriage. Normally a great source, but this map was taken from the Human Rights Campaign, a gay activists group.
What is the logic of the report?
This news report would be a logical way to open up your opinions. It is very interesting to hear from a federal employee who is gay. If you are looking for plain-old facts, this isn't the report to be watching.
What is left-out or missing
The conservative point of view. There are two sides to every story, and this report only tells one. The audience is left to wonder for themselves what the cons to same-sex marriage could be. This report would be more factual if it covered both sides of same-sex marriage in Obama's campaign.
Clerk defies law, OKs same-sex marriages
(Ganim, 2013)
CNN journalist Sara Ganim reports to the audience about Bruce Hanes, the register of wills in Montgomery, PA. He is pushing to make Pennsylvania the fourteenth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Ganim remains un-biased throughout her narrative of Hanes's story. Hanes, an obvious believer in same-sex marriage, also keeps his interview to truth. He doesn't give opinion, he tells his story of how he has taken the state constitution over the state law. One thing that seems "truthy" is that it is said that Pennsylvania is a mainly conservative state. Pennsylvania is actually classified as a "swing-state" and is known to vote both conservative and liberal (Pennsylvania, 2010). This report mainly turns away from "truthiness" and is informative and factual.
Both the journalist and the pundits give sufficient amount of evidence. Hanes quotes Article 1, Section 1, of the states constitution. The journalist quotes from the State Department of Health. Both sides of the story are backed by factual evidence. Both the pros and cons are given to the audience.
The journalist and pundit share the power. No one is domineering over the story. A difference between the other reports is that this story is not a live interview. No voices are left-out or biased. It must be easier for the news to make sure it is fair and balanced when they have time to work on a story, not just interview on the spot.
What is the source?
The source of the information comes from an interview with Hanes and with Danny Cevallos, a criminal attorney. Other information is given by the journalist. She gives facts about Pennsylvania but does not back them up with evidence.
What is the source's motivation?
The motivation of Hanes is to tell his point of view to the public. He wants to show that even though he is defying state law he has not gone rogue. He believes what he is doing is right.
What is the evidence provided?
The evidence provided is the Pennsylvania State Constitution and a letter from the Department of Health. Other interviews are also given from the public and professionals like Danny Cevallos, a criminal attorney.
What is the logic of the report?
This is a great report to watch if looking for truth. All participants in the report remain fairly unbiased and state the facts. They tell what happens in an easy way to understand so the audience doesn't feel that they are being cheated out of information.
What is left-out or missing?
Nothing appears to be left-out of the report. The story seems complete and covers both the conservative and liberal point of views.
CONCLUSION
The last report on Bruce Hanes appeared to be the most truthful report out of the four picked from CNN.
The report with the most "truthiness" was the report on Perkins, where the pundit gets attacked by the journalist.
We always must be prepared to search out the facts and find the truth amidst all the "truthiness".
No comments:
Post a Comment