Media Blog #3

I hate going after local newspapers, especially the Sacramento Bee, but this article was particularly loaded and I want to take a minute to address and dissect what I believe is a particularly polarized piece of news and give my two cents as to why the Sacramento Bee's editorial board needs to chill a bit. It should be noted that as a liberal myself who doesn't like Trump, it should be harder for me to find loaded language in an article bashing on Trump.

It would be too long and confusing to try and address this entire article using all kinds of loaded language, so I'm just going to give a few of the easy pickings since they are in abundance here and would encourage anybody reading this to check it out themselves to fully grasp what I'm trying to get at in this blog. 

Reification:
- "Already, he has damaged the presidency and our democracy."
- "Clearly, Trump is no Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Vagueness:
- "Contempt for openness."
- "Trump has failed to unify the nation."

Weasel Words:
- "The inquiries keep getting closer to his inner circle; depending on what’s uncovered, his presidency could be undermined, if not imperiled."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article147385959.html#storylink=cpy

- It should be noted that there were a ridiculous amount of weasel words in this editorial, paragraph 5 (a small to medium sized paragraph) alone using the word "could" as a weasel word 4 times. 

I also want to point out the unnecessary adjectives and words that have generally negative connotations are grossly overused. When describing his approach to tax reform, they use words like "me first" and "haphazard." It would suffice to merely describe what he did and why it is wrong, but instead the Sac Bee opted for using loaded language that was not backed up by any concrete argument voiced in the paragraph. Loaded language without any given reason was very frequent in this article to the point where it did make me a bit sick.

I would like to bring up something that extends to most other news outlets out there today, and that is that you can't judge Trump by his own ridiculous standards. It seems wrong for a news outlet to bash Trump for saying that he would ban all Muslims from the country and keep out Mexicans with a border wall, and then turn on a dime and criticize Trump again, saying that he is a failure because he hasn't accomplished all that he said he would. I'm not a huge fan myself, but you cannot judge a president based on all the things they said they would do. Obama went into his first term way too idealistic never completed many of his own promises, yet many of the same news outlets out to get trump today still love Obama for all that he has done.

Too many news outlets are setting Trump up for failure, to be judged too harshly. If he fails in his goals, the Sac Bee will say he is a failure because he didn't do what he said he would and if he did manage to pull of a travel ban, the Sac Bee would still be complaining because he actually did do what he said he would do, the same cynicism found in the highly criticized Fox News. All I ask is for news outlets to judge Trump not based on what he said he would do, but judge him when he acts, judge him based on the standards you hold yourselves to, not all that he has yet to do, especially when I know many of you news outlets disagree with what is on his agenda.

In closing, I just want to say that judging and bashing the other team has become all too frequent and all to harsh in the news today. All this does it further the divide between people on opposite ends of the political spectrum and alienates moderates that just people to get along. We cannot fix the political discourse you at the Sac Bee seem so consumed by until we stop with the hyper-partisanship you seem so intent on creating.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article147385959.html

Media Blog #2

For this post, I'm going to compare and contrast two different news outlets and their opinions on Trump's first 100 days, a source of contention between people with differing ideological views. The two news outlets will be the conservative Fox News and the slightly liberal CNN.


The Fox news article provides plenty of loaded language for those that want it. It has plenty of vague phrases and words when stating all the things Trump has delivered on like "stronger, more prosperous America," "restore confidence in our national security," and "preserve the integrity of the supreme court." These are all used in an attempt to try and make Trump's promises he supposedly achieved sound good when realistically they don't mean anything. Anyone can interpret what a "stronger, more prosperous America" means, showing the (kind of) genius in Trump's promises, allowing people to come in and say he succeeded upon later interpreting those vague promises, saying they meant this or that after the fact. Reification was used when the word "constitutional" was put alongside conservative to invoke strong feelings of power, freedom, and everything good in the world. All of these could be changed to have more negative meanings, changing the argument. Words like "more prosperous" could be changed to functional to make Trump's achievements now sound minimalistic and baseline. "Constitutional" could be changed to old fashioned to make the argument sound worse and less appealing to people. The rest of the words are meaningless and can't be changed to anything to flip the meaning of the argument because they don't mean anything in the first place.

The CNN article provides less, although some vagueness as well, words and phrases like "seemingly last ditch effort," "low tolerance," and "blend of paranoia and distrust." Both of those could be interpreted differently and changed to more positive words to completely change the argument. Last ditch effort could be changed to quick and decisive to completely change the argument, making Trump's buzzer beater attempts at achievements seem better. Paranoia and distrust could be changed to carefulness to sound more like it is a strategic slowness than a fault, changing the argument. While CNN had fewer of the other kinds of loaded language, it did contain a lot of language that was very biased and opinion based. Someone with a different political ideology at heart might think completely differently about the topic. A good one in the first few paragraphs is, "struggling to overcome an onslaught of crises."

Both of these articles also seemed to be loaded in general, not in nit picky phrasing, but in broad terms. Both brought up only the good or bad accomplishments depending on their political ideology, granted CNN did give Trump a few points. Both seemed to ignore the entire situation, choosing to look at the argument from only one side, something that really frustrates me and adds to our political discourse. We need to agree on a common reality and take all things into account, not just the ones that fit our narrative. Our political situation will never change unless we start to acknowledge what the other side has to say and see things from multiple viewpoints.



Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/28/rnc-chairwoman-trumps-historic-first-100-days.html\

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/inside-donald-trumps-tumultuous-first-100-days/

Media Blog #1

My relationship with the media is a mixed bag. On one hand, I need the media in my life for the useful information (e.g. news)  but on the other hand, I really hate it with a passion. So much of it is people out to push their opinions, their products, and ideas to the point where it makes my head hurt. In the news, there is much polarization based off political beliefs held by certain people or organizations. Each news is either very liberal or conservative, few being found in the middle of the road. Everyone wants to push their parties narratives. People often forget to report basic facts. I say all of this coming from a person who needs the news as infuriating as it can be. My main beef with ads is that they can be found everywhere at all times, constantly bombarding me with messages and I'm honestly a bit paranoid that I'm being brainwashed by it all. In all, while I rely on the media for my information and whatnot, I get frustrated at the fact that it never slows down and is filled with people trying to influence me and get their own two cents in to the point where basic facts can be indiscernible from opinions.