Fox News Reliable or Not?
This week a common topic in the news is the Kavanagh Accuser. If you didn't know Kavangh is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia. The news media I'm critiquing over this is from Fox News and the link can be found right here: http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/19/ann-coulter-tucker-carlson-democrats-obstruction-judge-brett-kavanaugh .
From the seven yardsticks of Journalism there were three things that were not found in there article and report. First off they were missing context, they didn't have any reliable sources there only source was Ann Coulter whom wrote a book called "Resistance is Futile: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost it's Mind". Even though Coulter is a book author it doesn't make her a reliable source because most of her "facts" are really opinions. For example during the interview, when asked why some republicans might turn on Kavangh rather then believe him is because they hated Trump. She had no facts to defend her claim, only reasoning. Secondly, there wasn't much research put into her response or the journalists response. They were really just reacting to everything going on rather then having a discussion with facts from the event which could later on lead to their opinions on the event at hand. Along with those two they completely skipped over fairness. The entire basis of the article and report were based on bias opinions. The attempted "evidence" in the report was the author Ann Coulter who didn't do a great job of helping since most of everything she said was saying "democrats are wrong, republicans are right." The journalist interpreting her information doesn't do a great job of hiding her bias and staying fair to both sides, but then again not everyone is made up to be a journalist.
For the ten elements of journalism, there were three things that were left out and poorly done in both the article and the report. Just like it was mentioned in the seven yardsticks of journalism, it comes up here again, which is verification. They did the job of a stenographer by reporting what happened and what each side thought but didn't do the job of a journalist. They were obvious to what was going on but didn't seem to be doing any active research or effort into how they reported it. They based most of the report based off what they heard and how it will effect the two parties. The second element that was also poorly done was independence. Both the journalist, and the person being interview, were not independent to the news story. They added a lot of their bias opinion about how democrats are using false accusations and how some republicans aren't being reliable towards their opinion, yet they seemed to lack the same qualities. The last element that could have been done better was being inclusive. They named a few people that were effected by what was happening such as white males, the white house, Kavangh, and Trump, but they don't seem to mention other sides such as how this might affect the accuser? Or how this will impact the citizens knowing someone in office is being accused of molestation? More sides could have been mentioned to get the overview around for all people so that they don't feel excluded or start treating Fox News as an unreliable source of information.
From the seven yardsticks of Journalism there were three things that were not found in there article and report. First off they were missing context, they didn't have any reliable sources there only source was Ann Coulter whom wrote a book called "Resistance is Futile: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost it's Mind". Even though Coulter is a book author it doesn't make her a reliable source because most of her "facts" are really opinions. For example during the interview, when asked why some republicans might turn on Kavangh rather then believe him is because they hated Trump. She had no facts to defend her claim, only reasoning. Secondly, there wasn't much research put into her response or the journalists response. They were really just reacting to everything going on rather then having a discussion with facts from the event which could later on lead to their opinions on the event at hand. Along with those two they completely skipped over fairness. The entire basis of the article and report were based on bias opinions. The attempted "evidence" in the report was the author Ann Coulter who didn't do a great job of helping since most of everything she said was saying "democrats are wrong, republicans are right." The journalist interpreting her information doesn't do a great job of hiding her bias and staying fair to both sides, but then again not everyone is made up to be a journalist.
For the ten elements of journalism, there were three things that were left out and poorly done in both the article and the report. Just like it was mentioned in the seven yardsticks of journalism, it comes up here again, which is verification. They did the job of a stenographer by reporting what happened and what each side thought but didn't do the job of a journalist. They were obvious to what was going on but didn't seem to be doing any active research or effort into how they reported it. They based most of the report based off what they heard and how it will effect the two parties. The second element that was also poorly done was independence. Both the journalist, and the person being interview, were not independent to the news story. They added a lot of their bias opinion about how democrats are using false accusations and how some republicans aren't being reliable towards their opinion, yet they seemed to lack the same qualities. The last element that could have been done better was being inclusive. They named a few people that were effected by what was happening such as white males, the white house, Kavangh, and Trump, but they don't seem to mention other sides such as how this might affect the accuser? Or how this will impact the citizens knowing someone in office is being accused of molestation? More sides could have been mentioned to get the overview around for all people so that they don't feel excluded or start treating Fox News as an unreliable source of information.
Comments
Post a Comment