Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ENGW 1111
Richards
23 March 2017
Media Bias
Headlines have taken over the world. Misleading titles aimed to twist the truth push a
narrative among people that intentionally creates fear and bias. Objective news reporting has
become an anomaly in this day in age as news corporations have become incentivized for higher
ratings and profits rather than their original purpose of edifying the general public. Organizations
plant their narrative in their viewers by leaving out stories that do not fit and unnecessarily over
reporting on others. The news intention of creating profit through their biased reporting
eventually pushes the truth to something that it is completely not. It is imperative for these
organizations cater to their readers opinions and approval for profit all the while supporting
candidates for their narrative in order to garner more attention towards their agenda and
ultimately more readerships. Out of the vast amount of accusations against each candidate, one
the biggest of them was the accusations against Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email
server. So much reporting occurred the public could not grasp a true understanding of what had
really happened through the pieces of evidence. Taking out the bias and observing the events
By March 2015, the American people had come to know that Hillary Clinton owned a
private email server. Despite being public knowledge, her involvement on the Benghazi
Committee and her bid for presidential election heavily exacerbated attention to this topic. The
New York Times posted an article that stated Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at
State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules to Fox News eventually posting Email scandal proves
Hillary learned wrong lessons from Nixon and Watergate Every new update on the event
spurred on a frenzy of events which take allegation out of proportion. They immediately
compare her to Nixon because of his likely guiltiness, implying that she is a comparable figure.
The only difference is that Clinton was acquitted and Nixon resigned. Is Hillary supposed to be
drawn as similar simply because of allegations because it is abundantly clear that one had to step
down as president while the other was declared free of charges? The Fox News article goes on to
suggest her culpability through purposeful quotes inserted throughout their piece. Hillary
Clintons secret server jeopardized our national security and sensitive diplomatic efforts on more
than 2,000 occasions, and shockingly, it now appears her reckless conduct continued even after
leaving the State Department, The article continues to create their discuss the allegations but
does not create direct accusations of the crime. It ends with Maybe she didnt do it. Maybe
shell go on to win the presidential election. Maybe theyll have to change the process of which
how one is elected. Maybe the country will fail after her election. Who knows? What does that
mean? Her culpability is widely implied through this end statement. Clearly, Fox News uses
indirect statements to heavily suggest implications that she is in fact guilty. The article could
have clearly outright accused of her responsibility for this crime but that would not nearly as
effective in getting its purpose across. It instead sets up a clearly likely hypothetical for the
reader to agree with. They also suggest that even if she does win, the country is poised for failure
but who knows what will happen? Beliefs that are personally thought of are far more
aggressively defended than those that are simply regurgitated to you. Hillary is poised to be
If we are to look at one side of the spectrum, we have to address the other. The right
suggests and pushes however the left diminishes and forget. The problem is not with what they
say but what they choose not to. After Wikileaks released thousands of documents, New York
Times failed to report on Hillarys implications with the leaks about Saudi Arabia funding Isis
and with the state department coordinating with Hillarys campaign. Its also really convenient
that two writers from the New York Times were accused of corroborating with the Hillary
campaign within the same leak. What also is very jarring is the down play of the seriousness of
the accusation. The Washington Post published articles such as Scandal! WikiLeaks reveals
Hillary Clinton to bereasonable and simple, which aims to down play the investigation and
leaks. The Washington Post states the excerpts suggests that she feels kind of far removed from
the ordinary Americans struggles because of her newfound wealth, and suggested she was
making a conscious effort to compensate for that and really admire[s] even ideological
opponents willing to run for office amid the toxicity of modern politics; she noted Its becomes
really convenient that the leaks only reveal positive statements that Hillary makes in her
emails. What happened to the leaks about her public and private position on Wall Street? Why
does the Post forget to mention how she said "The main reason behind successful immigration
should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are
almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese
people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks and Roma, for instance) fare badly almost
irrespective of circumstances." Are her leaks supposed to be all positive to prove Hillary has
nothing to hide and that inside she really is a wholesome person? Clearly the Washington post
knows their main demographic are liberals and purposefully aim to put her in better light in a
shitstorm of a scandal.
What do news corporations have to gain from their bias? These organizations may have
the intention of altering the political climate, but clearly there is profit as stake. Reporting on
events through their lenses that fit their audience, it is clear, news corporations today serve as
confirmation for these beliefs. Their core audience continuously comes back and actively
chooses to not get their news from a variety of sources due to confirmation bias. Higher ratings
create more revenue and profits and thus more bias is heavily implemented in this cycle of
selectivity and gain. Clearly news corporations tend to stick with their bias and support
candidates that share the bias of their readers. As conservative news sites trash on liberal ones
and vice versa, each viewer is reaffirmed for their disdain for the other side. Clearly Fox News
prefers Trump and sites like MSNBC are in favor for Hillary Clinton in harmony with their
readers. News sites research the trends of their audience and incentivize on the pre-established
viewpoints that the audience have in order to expand and maintain their audience.
Media organizations are clearly favored their personal candidate. Both try to either spur
on not proven allegations or diminish them by pointing towards the good. This symbiotic but
rather unhealthy relationship with the public and organizations feeding off of each other makes
that one is uninformed and other as rich. Hillary clearly had a scandal in hand but to say that it
was merely nothing or that she is immediately guilty are both offhand. We love to hear news that
is biased because it confirms that we are right and that the world is how we perceive it. News
reporting has deviated far from its original purpose of edifying the public. Long gone are the
days where we read the news to be informed whereas now we use it to confirm that we are right.
News articles are sold merely as biased advertisements packaged as news to attract more
readers. The publics attraction to their own perceived truth has created a market for news
"BIAS ALERT: WikiLeaks Exposes Media's Secret Support of Clinton." Fox News. FOX News
EDIT2. "Clinton Email Scandal: Hillary's Hypocrisy And Media's Bias Revealed." Investor's
Business Daily. Investor's Business Daily, 10 Oct. 2016. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.
"Email Scandal Proves Hillary Learned Wrong Lessons from Nixon and Watergate." Fox News.
Kopan, Gregory Krieg and Tal. "Is This the Email That Hacked John Podesta's Account?" CNN.