Assignment:
For this assignment you are to analyze and post one example of a liberal media product (a defined liberal magazine such as The Progressive or Mother Jones, a defined liberal newspaper, radio station, tv program, or a defined liberal internet site such as The Daily Kos). Be certain to follow this rubric to get the maximum grade for this assignment. Use precise statements and enough detail from your media products
1. Identifying the Liberal Media Product.
2. First element demonstrating this as a liberal product.
3. Second element demonstrating this as a liberal product.
4. Identifying a Conservative Media Product.
5. Comparison of Liberal and Conservative Media Products.
1. Describe 2 specific elements of this product that defines it as a liberal media product. These can be their use of unusual sources such as organized labor or social workers, specific vocabulary choices, a liberal perspective such as promoting government oversight of health care or social services, type of issues covered such as improving education or long-term infastructure investment, etc. Be precise in your description stating why these are liberal elements and not conservative.
2. Compare one of the liberal elements you chose in section 1 to a comparable element of a conservative media product. Use specific examples in a clear comparison, such as specific words used, type of sources used or announcer style (angry vs. gentle) to demonstrate the differences in design and construction.
Example:
Examine the following examples of a paper that met all of these criteria: see how it made clear statements of "liberal elements" and used specific support detail from the media sources to demonstrate these elements in use.
Liberal Media
A Liberal Media product is usually defined by its use of 1) vocabulary and 2) promotion of change in social issues.
A Liberal Media Product that exists today is the Mother Jones Website. This website is categorized as Liberal considering its elements of conspicuous liberal viewpoint headlines and spotlight on events of social changes. The Mother Jones website displays conspicuous Liberal viewpoints by headlining articles with specific vocabulary choices that "jab" at conservative republican campaigners. An example of this is the headliners "Meet the Only Jeb Bush Supporter at His Caucus" and "Obama: Americans Won't Trust Trump With the Nuclear Codes". This headliner is an example of Mother Jone's jabs at conservative republican campaigners because it suggests several of the campaigners for the republican party are inept or untrustworthy for presidential duty, thus, revealing that this website does not support conservatives. The Mother Jones' website shows the liberal element of spotlighting events of social changes through its designated section for gay rights. This section displays gay marriage positively and projects those who do not support gay marriage in a bad light, which is typically conservatives. This is
also shown in the new story headlined, " Ted Cruz's Dad Says It's Appalling to Have a Gay Mayer." More articles on this website showcase and support coming out stories and what inspired them to come out. Moreover, the Mother Jones website displays its Liberal elements by attacking conservative politicians, anti-abortion supporters, and criticizing anti-gay supporters, therefore making the Mother Jones website defined as Liberal. In contrast, the Fox News website is widely known as and epitomizes conservative viewpoints. Fox News displays its support for conservatives by elements on the website such as a
section of news regarding gun control laws and how the U.S. need to protect those rights. This is supported by new stories of citizens who saved themselves or others by exercising their right to
conceal carry or own a firearm. Additionally, the Fox News website shows its dislike for the governments effect on social change and support for republican party candidates. In comparison
to the Mother Jones website, the Fox News website displays news stories headlined "Jeb-Ready to be the Commander in Chief America needs." This support for the republican candidate
contrasts Mother Jones' new stories content and headlines make Bush's campaign come across as a joke. Fox News' website uses gentle and encouraging words to describe campaigners, such
as " Trump is going to win, probably big" or as their way to make negative references towards the democratic candidates they post an article headlined "Is Hilary Clinton Trustworthy?" This
story contains information that is insulting to Hilary Clinton, but the vocabulary use is not to the extent Mother Jones uses. Whereas, the Mother Jones' website writes phrases such as "Pro-
Clinton Latino Leaders Slam Sanders." Fox News discusses how Obama, who is admittedly a Liberal President "regrets" a decision to filibuster the nominated Supreme Court judge. This
article goes as far as to say the "Republicans are going further than Obama did, with a pledge to not consider anyone the president nominates." This is not so subtle support for the conservative
republican side of the campaign. Ultimately, Fox News is stating their opinion that Obama is not capable of making important decisions.
In summary, the Mother Jones website is defined as a liberal media product due to its use of vocabulary in its headline and news story content, separation from conservative viewpoints,
promotion of social issues and government oversight. Whereas, Fox news is a conservative website that focuses on gun control laws, how the government has too much control, and uses
conservative vocabulary, thus separating it from liberal viewpoints and categorizing it as a
conservative media product.
Liberal Media
The liberal media product that I chose to analyze was the online site, The Guardian. This website is categorized as Liberal based on a few key elements from our notes. One viewpoint that makes this website Liberal is it's vocabulary in its headlines and stories. For example, in one story from The Guardian, "Tiger Woods avoids jail after pleading guilty to reckless driving," uses vocabulary that minimalizes the outcome and details of Tiger Woods conviction rather than sending the information out with rage. I believe this story could have easily been labeled in a way that criticized Tiger Woods easy escape from his punishment due to his popularity or wealth. Instead, the article is labeled in a way that gives the information, plain and simple, allowing the reader to create an opinion of the incident rather than the journalist forcing a preconceived idea on the reader via the vocabulary of the headline or story. Another element that defines The Guardian as being liberal is their use and variety of sources. For example, in the story "NFL owner forced to apologies after comparing players to ‘inmates'," uses a variety of sources that give the article facts, opinions and documents. These examples include a report from ESPN, a document regarding the apology from the NFL, official report from players and the owner of the NFL. The variety in these sources allow for more information of the incident from all viewpoints rather than the journalists report.
After analyzing and constructing opinions of The Guardian, the true nature of its liberal aspects where clear when I compared it to the element of vocabulary with the conservative news format, The Blaze. Ranked by the Washington Post as a conservative media source, the main difference in comparison of The Guardian and The Blaze that I found is the use of vocabulary. The Blaze, ranked high as conservative has proven through the use of vocabulary for their dislike of the government, lack of recognition for racial or gender resistance and overall attitude towards ‘strange' news stories. One example of their use of vocabulary is in the headline, "Another instance of an incoherent Nancy Peloski" which talks about her incapability to be a high power figure due to a concern of potential health problems and an example of general dislike of the government.
A clear format in difference of ‘liberal' The Guardian and ‘conservative' The Blaze is clearly represented in a similar story regarding President Trump. From The Guardian, "Conservative site initially hired firm that produced Trump-Russia dossier" vs The Blaze, "Popular conservative website funded Clinton-linked oppo research firm that made anti-Trump dossier. In the former, the article talks about the the Free Beacon and the GPS told the company to stop doing opposition research on Trump in May, 2016 because he was a Republican nominee though they continue research because of the tie of Trump's campaign's connections to Russia. Later in the article it is quoted: "All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier." In the later article from The Blaze, an attempt to re-correct information that was given is quoted as: "The Lawyers said the Free Beacon funded their research project beginning in the fall of 2015 but later withdrew the funding in the spring of 2016. However, the research covered multiple Republican presidential candidates, not just Trump. The research had nothing to do with Russia." Continuing on, the article exclaims the GPS had no knowledge or connection with the Anti-Trump dossier, Christopher Steeler, and that they stand by their information and research. One side of the story says Trump was the target and there were ties with Russia, the other side says other Republican candidates were at stake and Russia was never a connection. The Guardian uses vocabulary that is gentile and nonaggressive such as ‘intrigued', ‘phony' and ‘ retained' where as The Blaze uses aggressive vocabulary like ‘lie', ‘unapologetic' and ‘dishonest.' Under the idea of difference in vocabulary, a component that also stood out to me was their announcement style and the way they told the story. I found The Guardian to give a gentle yet confirmative style almost as if they were to ‘tell it like it is' and The Blaze added anger and despair much like from the use of words I described above. I also felt they were trying to rally-up the reader and force an opinion about the topic due to the former example statement regarding Trump not being the only candidate and that Russia was not involved.
Overall, I feel both forms of media will express their opinions and ‘facts.' I would not suggest that either one of these sources has the ‘right' answer or story because they both have slight altercations to a general story based on their perspective of media formats and views. I would suggest reading both in order to get a better understanding of information in order to form a solid opinion of the news.
https://www.theblaze.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?utm_term=.4dbdaf6c645e
6. Identifying the Liberal Media Product.
7. First element demonstrating this as a liberal product.
8. Second element demonstrating this as a liberal product.
9. Identifying a Conservative Media Product.
10. Comparison of Liberal and Conservative Media Products.