Reporting the News
There is so much confusion in today's media environment. The way media outlets manipulate sources can greatly impact their message and effectiveness at convincing audiences. Thus, sources are often manipulated in order to serve an elitist or government agenda, branching off what so called "authority" figures may offer in way of research material for continuing news coverage of America's political environment.
There are a number of ways that the selection of sources by reporters affects the content of news. The news has been used by politicians and government forces for decades. Government officials do tend to go to the press, often "not always to advance a unified government interest," but rather to expose opponents' embarrassing information (Schudson, 140). In this, some government sources may tend to manipulate media outlets, efficiently making the media a pawn in the political game. Not all government sources can be counted as some gracious truth. Too much concentration on government sources can prove biased. When a journalist fails to have a more balanced opposing resource, it could be assumed that journalist does not want to introduce any other messages into the dialogue. Domhoff shows how reporters in the mainstream media tend to spin elements of stories by manipulating sources to serve elitist interests. Domhoff discusses the prevalence of the elite upper class population to be favored in how government or other authority figures are used as the only sources, pushing only an agenda in favor of these affluent interests (Domhoff, 10).
One recent example of the political bias that is found in mainstream media is a recent February 28, 2013 article written by Cyber News Service, also known as CSN News. The article, written by Elizabeth Harrington, highlights a recent interview of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his frustration with the hostility of the Republican Party in terms of cooperation to get real solutions passed. Harrington reports Reid as saying that "Republicans are unwilling to do what the American people want done" and that (Harrington, 2013). There is clear negative banter that illustrates a dark and hostile image of the Republican Party, but there is no other voice of opposition that would help balance that image out to the reader and provide a potential explanation for that hostility. The story was released in the midst of a major media firestorm over budget cuts known as "The Sequester" (Harrington, 2013). The one sided view of how hard it has been to structure a liberal foundation in contemporary fiscal policies. It features Reid bashing Republicans for their stubbornness and hostility, despite the needs of the American people. Yet, there is no Republican voice that is brought in to potentially explain the party's side. The article quotes Reid going as far as claiming that the Republicans are "unwilling to do what the American people want done. And it's as simple as that" (Harrington, 2013). There is a positive image of the Democratic fiscal policies in question using statistics as a way to inflate the perceived reliability on behalf of the audience. The article ends with "the reductions amount to 1.2% of the budget and equal to $44 billion in spending for 2013," (Harrington 1). This is done while clearly bashing the Republicans, claiming they are indifferent to the needs and demands of the American people.
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.