Comparing how news media headlines and reports on the same story

Published

There is allot of discussion on news media bias. I thought I would start a topic dedicated to this. I find the best way to gather information of any topic is to read various sources of different political leanings. 

To start the conversation, I'll submitt this news story. 

A headline from Fox News and one from MDNSBC. Note the different headlines and contents. 

https://www.MSN.com/en-gb/news/world/doctor-struck-by-car-while-biking-before-driver-got-out-and-stabbed-him-to-death-police-say/ar-AA175gIR?li=BBoPWjQ

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-accused-stabbing-california-doctor-death-spoke-white-privilege-during-attack-witness-says

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:

So the senate is in violation of its constitutional duty? The senate did something illegal? 

If it was a legal matter then why wasn't he charged? 

It followed the legal pathway and the results are as they are. The impeachment followed through to the senate as it should do under the law. 

If Trump was charged criminally and then found not guilty, would you say the criminal court did not do its duty as well? Where does this end? 

I would feel allot more secure in Trumps guilt if he was charged for something. I speculate if there were probable cause to do so and the democrats/DOJ thought there could have been enough evidence to find him guilty, they would have jumped on that pony a long time ago. Until he is charged criminally and found guilty, I have to take the actions against him as political theater. 

 

When Republicans say that Trump was guilty of fomenting events of January 6th but then refuse to convict the guilty party, are they upholding their oaths of office and completing the duties of office as required? I don't think so but maybe you have different expectations and standards for your Senators or the Senate as a whole.  I'm pretty sure that they take oaths to protect and defend the constitution... not the guy trying to rewrite the part about elections to give himself lost power. 

Why do you think Trump wasn't charged when he was found to have broken laws to pay off a Media star or when it was documented that he obstructed justice multiple times?  Do you think that it had anything to do with the DOJ memo that says that a sitting president can't be indicted? 

It's a mystery why Trump hasn't been indicted by now.  It's almost like if you are powerful enough in this country you are immune from prosecution for crimes. 

You are welcome to consider the evidence of Trump's crimes to be political theater.  I didn't find Bob Mueller to be all that theatrical. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Home care/Travel.
toomuchbaloney said:

When Republicans say that Trump was guilty of fomenting events of January 6th but then refuse to convict the guilty party, are they upholding their oaths of office and completing the duties of office as required? I don't think so but maybe you have different expectations and standards for your Senators or the Senate as a whole.  I'm pretty sure that they take oaths to protect and defend the constitution... not the guy trying to rewrite the part about elections to give himself lost power. 

Why do you think Trump wasn't charged when he was found to have broken laws to pay off a Media star or when it was documented that he obstructed justice multiple times?  Do you think that it had anything to do with the DOJ memo that says that a sitting president can't be indicted? 

It's a mystery why Trump hasn't been indicted by now.  It's almost like if you are powerful enough in this country you are immune from prosecution for crimes. 

You are welcome to consider the evidence of Trump's crimes to be political theater.  I didn't find Bob Mueller to be all that theatrical. 

The impeachment process went through its process and we know the result. Unless there is proof that something illegal or unconstitutional happened during that process I accept the results as they are. I would hold the same feelings for Biden. I have to unless I want to place mistrust our government. 

I do not know why he wasn't charged. I wish they would charge him if that's what they are going to do. Until he is convicted in a court of law, I will presume him innocent as it is in the constitution. The DOJ can arrest him now. So why don't they if he is such a blatant criminal? Is there a statute of limitations on paying off Media stars? (I'm not indicating that I believe him to be innocent or guilty). 

Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy in our government that prevents Trump from getting charged or otherwise held  accountable for what democrats and a few Republicans say he is guilty of? After FBI focused investigations, x 2 impeachment  Jan.6 committee dedicated solely on him, Mueller report and a FBI  raid on his resort? Still no charges or accountability?  It's not unreasonable to think that perhaps after all that there is nothing or not enough at least. The only other option is to believe in conspiracy theories. 

The Mueller report amounted to nothing(as in consequences) not necessarily of content. Same with Russian collusion. 

At this point either hold him accountable or charge him. So many are weary of this constant go around. I will assume him innocent until any of it is proven otherwise. That's all I have left for this topic. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:

The impeachment process went through its process and we know the result. Unless there is proof that something illegal or unconstitutional happened during that process I accept the results as they are. I would hold the same feelings for Biden. I have to unless I want to place mistrust our government. 

I do not know why he wasn't charged. I wish they would charge him if that's what they are going to do. Until he is convicted in a court of law, I will presume him innocent as it is in the constitution. The DOJ can arrest him now. So why don't they if he is such a blatant criminal? Is there a statute of limitations on paying off Media stars? (I'm not indicating that I believe him to be innocent or guilty). 

Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy in our government that prevents Trump from getting charged or otherwise held  accountable for what democrats and a few Republicans say he is guilty of? After FBI focused investigations, x 2 impeachment  Jan.6 committee dedicated solely on him, Mueller report and a FBI  raid on his resort? Still no charges or accountability?  It's not unreasonable to think that perhaps after all that there is nothing or not enough at least. The only other option is to believe in conspiracy theories. 

The Mueller report amounted to nothing(as in consequences) not necessarily of content. Same with Russian collusion. 

At this point either hold him accountable or charge him. So many are weary of this constant go around. I will assume him innocent until any of it is proven otherwise. That's all I have left for this topic. 

Of course we accept the results of the impeachments, they are official and final. That doesn't mean that Senate Republicans didn't play political shenanigans.  In case you didn't have the time to watch the proceedings (most health professionals don't) here's a brief discussion of the explanations given by the senator's for not convicting. IMV they were playing politics when they should have been practicing politics because they believed he was guilty but they found excuses to let him of the book.  There should have been political consequences right there for Trump's dangerous and unconstitutional ambitions. 

I grow weary too. I cannot imagine how people can see, hear and read the evidence and believe that Trump is innocent of law breaking.  

The lack of real and meaningful consequences for the powerful and wealthy when they break laws is discouraging when our jails and prisons are over flowing with the poor. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Home care/Travel.
toomuchbaloney said:

Of course we accept the results of the impeachments, they are official and final. That doesn't mean that Senate Republicans didn't play political shenanigans.  In case you didn't have the time to watch the proceedings (most health professionals don't) here's a brief discussion of the explanations given by the senator's for not convicting. IMV they were playing politics when they should have been practicing politics because they believed he was guilty but they found excuses to let him of the book.  There should have been political consequences right there for Trump's dangerous and unconstitutional ambitions. 

I grow weary too. I cannot imagine how people can see, hear and read the evidence and believe that Trump is innocent of law breaking.  

The lack of real and meaningful consequences for the powerful and wealthy when they break laws is discouraging when our jails and prisons are over flowing with the poor. 

This is an interesting read on the topic. 

https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth

Quote

One is that news can change perceptions, and perceptions often become reality. Adverse leaks or innuendos about a government official often lead to his or her loss of influence, resignation, or dismissal. The stock market is also fertile ground for planted stories. Rumors or allegations spread by short sellers often drive a stock's price down. There may be nothing wrong with either the official's performance or the stock's value, but the willingness of the press to report innuendos and rumors as news changes reality. The subjects of such reports, which are usually fabrications created by opponents, must be prepared to defend themselves instantly. The mere appearance of a disparaging report in the press changes perceptions and, unless effectively rebutted, will change reality and the truth. That is why government officials and politicians—and, increasingly, companies and other institutions—pay as much attention to communications as to policy.

 

Indeed, much of what appears in the newspapers as business news is nothing more than corporate propaganda. When I was an executive at a large public-relations agency, I was often amused to observe how many of the stories in the Wall Street Journal and the business section of the New York Times were essentially news releases the agency had issued the previous day. On some days, most of the stories were clearly identifiable as coming—some nearly word for word—from announcements by corporations or government agencies.

 

 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, TB.
Roitrn said:

This is an interesting read on the topic. 

https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth

 

What do you find interesting about it? 

I thought it was an overgeneralization of journalism. Yes, of course, companies put out press releases. And in today's world of cutting reporting staff, I am not surprised if a new outlet publishes what is in a release. I think ethically, should they should cite the source of the info, I.e. "according to Acme Industries spokesperson, 'blah, blah.'" My employer issues press releases all the time about local health alerts. Surely you don't expect our wee little local paper and radio station to be stalking the beaches to get the inside scoop on red tides? 

I have a great deal of regard for investigative journalists who spend countless hours pouring over documents and reaching out to potential sources. One of my favorite movies is All the President's Men, that recounts Woodward and Bernstein as they investigate Watergate. I don't think you can compare the work that New York Times and Washington Post staff do to outlets that merely reprint the work of others. And journalists who merely report rumors are not true journalists, IMO. 

Another fine investigative organization is ProPublica who recently reported on how a medical insurance company attempted to avoid paying for care for one of their customers: https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-insurance-denial-ulcerative-colitis

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Home care/Travel.
nursej22 said:

What do you find interesting about it? 

I thought it was an overgeneralization of journalism. Yes, of course, companies put out press releases. And in today's world of cutting reporting staff, I am not surprised if a new outlet publishes what is in a release. I think ethically, should they should cite the source of the info, I.e. "according to Acme Industries spokesperson, 'blah, blah.'" My employer issues press releases all the time about local health alerts. Surely you don't expect our wee little local paper and radio station to be stalking the beaches to get the inside scoop on red tides? 

I have a great deal of regard for investigative journalists who spend countless hours pouring over documents and reaching out to potential sources. One of my favorite movies is All the President's Men, that recounts Woodward and Bernstein as they investigate Watergate. I don't think you can compare the work that New York Times and Washington Post staff do to outlets that merely reprint the work of others. And journalists who merely report rumors are not true journalists, IMO. 

Another fine investigative organization is ProPublica who recently reported on how a medical insurance company attempted to avoid paying for care for one of their customers: https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-insurance-denial-ulcerative-colitis

Quote

Take, for example, the long effort in the 1980s to eliminate the federal deficit, centered on the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Amendment. For several years, newspapers, magazines, and television newscasts ran hundreds of stories on the debates over Gramm-Rudman, the views of all sorts of experts on the urgent need for deficit reduction, and the eventual enactment of the legislation. Politicians postured—and were described—as working diligently to get a grip on the deficit. Anyone who read a newspaper or watched television news received the message that Congress and the Reagan administration were heroically and painfully struggling to contain government spending and reduce the deficit.

 

Behind the smoke screen, however, congressional committees and federal officials were increasing spending and adding new programs in the routine annual budgeting and appropriations processes. When journalists reported on a new program, they usually characterized it as good news—the government tackling another problem—rather than as an addition to the budget and the deficit. Journalists conspired with politicians to create an image of a government fighting to end the deficit crisis, but they ignored the routine procedures that increased the deficit. As a result, Weaver writes, "there were no news stories about government adding to the deficit even though that was what was happening.”

I think part is interesting. I think it reflects strongly of what's occurring in out political media today. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, TB.
Roitrn said:

I think part is interesting. I think it reflects strongly of what's occurring in out political media today. 

I suppose. I remember when we were told that slashing taxes for the wealthy would pay for itself, but it didn't. I believe it actually added $488 billion to the deficit. 

And now I'm reading that we will save money by not hiring IRS workers, except that we won't, because there is not enough staff to audit the tax filings of the wealthy. Middle and lower class citizens have W-2s that automatically send taxes to the IRS, but the wealthy send payments and can afford accountants who can bend and skirt regulations. Congressional Republicans want to cut $80 billion, which will lead to a loss of $114 billion in revenue. 

Just a point of semantics: I don't understand how an opinion piece written 18 years ago "reflects" something current. Can the past reflect the present?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
nursej22 said:

...Can the past reflect the present?

Yes... especially if we ignore or suppress historical facts and evidence.

Roitrn said:

I think part is interesting. I think it reflects strongly of what's occurring in out political media today. 

I think today we have political figures who are comfortable lying directly and often to the American public in this era of conmen, grifters and charlatans.  Trump is an obvious and perfect example of this phenomenon... his brand of politics inspired people like Kari Lake, George Santos and Herschel Walker. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Home care/Travel.
nursej22 said:

I suppose. I remember when we were told that slashing taxes for the wealthy would pay for itself, but it didn't. I believe it actually added $488 billion to the deficit. 

And now I'm reading that we will save money by not hiring IRS workers, except that we won't, because there is not enough staff to audit the tax filings of the wealthy. Middle and lower class citizens have W-2s that automatically send taxes to the IRS, but the wealthy send payments and can afford accountants who can bend and skirt regulations. Congressional Republicans want to cut $80 billion, which will lead to a loss of $114 billion in revenue. 

Just a point of semantics: I don't understand how an opinion piece written 18 years ago "reflects" something current. Can the past reflect the present?

Well not reflect it exactly as it is. However events in history always give us some insight. This piece demonstrates a pattern of media reporting. 

IMO I found it interesting because there are many parallels we see today in our media. 

History is also relevent and has a important role in preventing some of the most atrocities we have seen. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Home care/Travel.
toomuchbaloney said:

Yes... especially if we ignore or suppress historical facts and evidence.

I think today we have political figures who are comfortable lying directly and often to the American public in this era of conmen, grifters and charlatans.  Trump is an obvious and perfect example of this phenomenon... his brand of politics inspired people like Kari Lake, George Santos and Herschel Walker. 

And Joe biden, Anderw Cuomo,  Stacey Abrams are good examples as well. 

Unless you believe that only Republicans can be liars, conmen, grifterrs and charlatans? LOL

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:

And Joe biden, Anderw Cuomo,  Stacey Abrams are good examples as well. 

Unless you believe that only Republicans can be liars, conmen, grifterrs and charlatans? LOL

Again, I did not say that only Republicans can be liars. Clearly Bill Clinton lied about sex. Clinton embellished her brush with fame and Biden embellished his academic record., etc. 

  Lots of conservatives believe that Biden is a liar.  That's fine.  I simply think that anything attributed to him as a lie pales in comparison to the lies of some of the conservative political leaders or Trump, the current republican front runner for the next presidential race.  But you are welcome to post any article or comment which is critical of his honesty. There's an entire Biden thread if the content you would like to discuss would fit there better. 

No, I didn't I say that only Republicans can be conmen, grifters or charlatans. I simply referenced some of the most famous and active conmen, grifters and charlatans in the news who are meddling in our politics right now.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Travel, Home Health, Med-Surg.

I honestly don't think there are any trustworthy "news" organizations anymore. Maybe local news is not so bad but even local news/papers are being bought out by the large corporations which do affect their reporting. I am old enough to see the changes over the years and it is not good. Our Country is divided and the "news" certainly isn't helping. As I have said many times here I watch/listen/read news from different sides and hope to get the truth by comparison and deciphering the articles. It is a shame because we should not need to.  Read the below article and apply it to your "news" and see just how off the mark they really are.
 

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/how-to-spot-types-of-media-bias
 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment