How can the same event be depicted so differently? Each paper obviously has a different spin on the same events? Do news outlets have a responsibility to be unbiased? What is the best way to find the truth?
NY TIMES vs NY POST
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hillary Clinton is portrayed by the Post as an unthoughtful, not caring for anyone but herself power hungry candidate. Her views on the war are always changing with the economy and even after her victory at the polls she acted as if it wasnt enough and did not even take the time to acknowledge her victory.
I do not believe Clinton would be a good candidate. Her mind and thoughts fly over the people without answering or asking any questions. Hillary Clinton, I believe is a danger to our economy just because she is too stuck on winning and being the power favorite. It is almost as if she would cut throats to get what she needed.
Who is the real Hillary Clinton? Is she the evil woman that the post portrays her as or is she a just woman who is being degraded? There are many sides to one story but only one side is correct. In this case there are two sides. The New York Times said that she was a worthy candidate. The post however seems to find many faults about her. They said that “Hillary Rodham Clinton sailed to an easy win over her anti war challenger”, this is saying that Clinton really didn’t have to work hard in order to defeat her opponent in fact it is saying that she was hardly working. The post also said that “and Clinton’s anti-war, underfunded challenger, Jonathan Tasini, managed to snare almost a fifth of the vote- 17 percent to her 83. My interpretation of this quote is that even though tasini didn’t have half as much as money as Hillary he still managed to get almost a fifth of the votes. So basically it’s saying that if Clinton had no money then tasini would have won. The new york times does not dislike hillary Clinton in fact they have a high regard for her this quote proves it “Mrs.Clinton and Mr. shumer have high approval ratings. The new york times also said that “clitons work ethic, her lack of enemies, and her fund raising help for other democrats have insulated her from party criticism.” This quote is saying that she is shieleded from criticism because there is nothing bad that they can say about her. The reason why the media can affect our perception of political figures is because you basically listen to what they tell you because u don’t know what else to think. The media is like the black hole in which that it tries to draw you into its circle so you believe what their telling you. So believe what you want to believe and not what someone else is telling you to believe.
I agree with Peter, the media plays a huge role in deciding the protagonist from the antagonist. Such that New York Post quotes, “Clinton sailed to an easy win over her anti-war challenger.” Otherwise indicating her satirically that her easy victory should have been flawless, if it were not for Tasini who managed to “snare almost a fifth of the vote.” It can be viewed that New York Post regards Clinton as a cocky candidate in such a way that she disregards her win with no victory celebration and resumes back to her mundane life in Washington D.C. New York Times however, comments “Clinton’s work ethics, her lack of enemies, and her fun-raising help for other Democrats have insulated her from party criticism” and acknowledges Clinton has high approval ratings. In short, New York Times neutrality is the type of media that we desire so it doesn’t display any favoritism.
I agree with peter. Its easy to believe the person that media portrays of Hillary Clinton whether the image be positive or negative. Last night I was watching the news on the WB and in the report they referred to her as former President Bill Clinton's wife. While that may very well be true what relevance did it hold in referring to her in that specific way as if she almost wasn’t her own person? In my opinion it was degrading (again agreeing with Peter) because they made her sound as if she would not hold the position that she does had her husband not been the former President. Sources flood every line of communication possible between them and the people in hopes that they will hear something they agree with and remain loyal to that source in many events to come. Vocabulary alone sets the tone and the image that the reader gets. As Mr. Brown said in class today, “…there are always 3 sides to a story. Your side, their side, and somewhere in the middle is the truth.” In this case, the truth is something that we will more than likely never have the privilege of knowing unless of course you know Hillary Clinton personally.
I think in the New York Post article they do present Hillary Clinton as a candidate where everything has to do with the New York people . They make her sound so anti war when the New York Times makes it that she is for the war. When she won the election she didn’t even hold a victory party she was at her home taking care of senate business. She asked new Yorkers to take a chance and the way they gave her the opportunity was her winning the election.
Will she be a good candidate ? The Post makes her sound good and the Times makes her sound bad so which paper do you agree with?
I think you have the papers reversed Richard, but you do have an understanding of the issue.
I also agree with Peter, news is supposed to be about the facts. However between these two newspapers it sounds like a he said, she said incident. Also there oppinions are very clear to how they feel about Hilary Clinton and, Johnathan Tasini. The Post Dislikes Hilary Clinton and her win by saying “Hillary Rodham Clinton sailed to an easy win over her anti war challenger”, meaning that she was not even trying. The New York Times on the other hand thinks very highly, as to when they describe her work ethic and her morals. Thye percieve her to be a hard working individual who instead of celebrating her win chose to work. I think that the news should concentrate more on what is really going on then what they want to percieve.
------> Michelle Asciote
Post a Comment