While reading The New York Times, Fox News and Sam Stein’s article that was posted on Huffington Post about the national unemployment report and President Obama’s address to a Joint Session of Congress that will occur this Thursday I could not help but notice that despite the fact that all three sources tell the facts of the story there seemed to be a slight slant in the wording the articles. However, before the conversation about the skewed viewing of the facts, it is important to consider how the facts are presented in the articles.
The New York Times presented the facts, which are the how, what, when, who and why’s of the story, in the most detached, passive voice about Obama’s speech and the unemployment report. Also, the article provided links to their other articles about the facts. Due to the fact that The New York Times provides these links it forces one to believe that it has an authoritative voice, a trustworthy voice, and one that you can trust while you pursue the truth. It seems as if The New York Times is aimed for liberal, upper class Americans, who have a thirst for knowledge that is not tainted with the GOP’s agenda.
Fox News has the same facts as The New York Times; in actuality, their facts are quoted in the Huffington Post article. However, there is something funny about the article. It was hard to discern the facts from the opinions of the writers. For instance, when the writers is discussing why Obama will not be focusing on unemployment in his speech Henry and Barnes “but it could also be an attempt by the administration to show the president is trying to stay all over the economy heading into what will likely be an uphill re-election battle”. The tone of this piece, in comparison to the other two that are more passive in their voices, suggest that there is something sinister about Obama’s decision to not touch upon the report.
All of the articles ended on a note of the unknown. Because the news story has not reached its conclusion, and the press is speculating about what Obama will speak on at his address, the articles cannot give a concrete answer about the future of America’s employment issues. Noteworthy, however, is the conclusion of the Huffington Post article, which had former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell speaking on what he believed Obama should be doing instead of going on a tour and speaking about the employment issues in America while among Americans and not politicians.
After looking at all of the articles I would have trusted The New York Times the most because it is just providing cold hard facts with little opinions. Huffington Post is a close second because despite the detached voice and little opinions I cannot seem to trust a source that is one: a blog and two: getting their facts from other people’s articles. That does not make them a source or an authority on the subject.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/obama-jobs-speech_n_947181.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/business/economy/united-states-showed-no-job-growth-in-august.html?_r=1&hp
Paige,
ReplyDeleteOverall a very good job on your analysis. And you have a strong, neutral writing voice that is highly professional. I'll look forward to reading more of your work.
I was curious about the leap you made from how the NYT presented the facts of the story to who you imagine its readers are. Studies show that it's true that its readership is educated, but beyond that it has broad appeal among business leaders, power brokers, cultural divas and others who want to be on top of issues. "Urban" might be more apt.
I would encourage you to add more detail and examples to your writing, to back up or amplify on your points. Really like the quote you pulled from the Fox coverage, and it would have been effective to do the same with the NYT and HuffPost stories. The Rendell example needed more explanation to make your analysis complete.
But overall, very good stuff here.