The two media outlet we use are "The New York Times" and "FoxNews"
As we all know, election day 2012 only a year off and President Obama is going to re-elect for the new president. He has formally announced his 2012 re-election bid. Obama has already started to prepare his re-election and he said that his supporters will begin forging a new organisation in cities and towns across the country. On the other side, several Republicans are considering running against Obama but they still have not made their candidacies official. Currently, early polls are showing that Obama leading potential Republican rivals.
Following is the News got from The New York Times (post by Miao Xu)
The topic our group is interested is whether Barack Obama will still be the president in the next term. I picks three articles from New York Time which discusses this issue. The first news I read displays the money rate between two main Presidential Candidates, Obama and Mitt Romney.
Here is the graph from the New York Times:
From the graph, it is easy to find that Obama has much higher money rate than Mitt Romney. We know that the person who has higher money will have higher possbility to win the campaign. Therefore, obviously, Barack Obama has higher possibility to be the next president.
The second article I read is title"Big Cash Edge Powers Obama in Drive for 2012", which is edited by Nicholas Confessore and Griff Palmer on October 15,2011. It analyses why Obama has absolute advantages in money race. It says that since the begin of the year, Obama and the Democratic National Committee have spent close to 87 million in operating costs. This money help Obama to set campaign offices in at least 15 states. Moreover, by this money, Obama cab yse all kind of method to sustain his campaign such as the socail media and information technology. As a resultm it can raise the samll-dollar donation for him. For example, the Jim Messina, Mr.Obama's campaign manager said that "In the past three months, we've grown our organizing staff by 50 percent and opened up three new field office every week. Moreover "Thousands of volunteers and organizers made 3 million phone calls and in-person visits to voters." By contract, Mitt Romney has the campaign office in just a handful of early primary states. In additional, this news also said that Obama spent more than two million dollar on online advertising and the computer equipment and sofeware also cost about 0.5 million. However, each of the Republican candidates: Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Jon M. Huntsman Jr. spent less money on this kind of method. So from this article, we can say that by the enough money, Obama can large number the method to increase the suport rate and to remedy the other part that he is weak in. Therefore, the article supports that Obama to be the president in the next term.
Following is the New got from Fox News (post by Chen Liu)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/03/warning-to-president-obama-in-2012-presidential-race/
by Karl Rove----Nov 03 2011/ FoxNews.com
Title: The Warning to President Obama In the 2012 Presidential Race.
This news mainly says that President Obama's re-election prospects looks perilous.
- There are almost 74% Americans complain that the United State is "on the wrong track" and historically no president won re-election if so many people has that kind opinion.
- ONLY 13% Americans are satisfied with current jobs did by president and government.
- Mr's Obama's current job-approval rating is very LOW: 43%. Historically, no president has been re-elected at this low rating.
It also talked about that Democrats did not won in the midterm election in 2010. This will also make them disadvantageous because Republicans won more than 50 seats in the House of Representatives ,increased many seats in senate and won more governor of state compared with Democrates. That means Republicans has more space and power to prepare the election next year.
Compare and analyze the differences
The two news we choose from "The New York Times" and "FoxNews" have opposite point. The one in favor of Democrats and the other one in favor of Republicans. Each source has its different position.
The New York Times pay more attention to the comparison between Obama and several main candidate of Republicans. It compares fund they have, how is their speech, approval rating right now and so on. The The New York Times like to use graphs to state its opinion and I think it is a very good way because graphs show readers direct information and it is also easier for readers to compare different data, in this case, election between Republicans and Democrats. The NY Times' Journalism is also more Objective than FoxNews. Most of its opinion are strictly come from credible data ,statistical numbers and graphs. It seems like the news from "The New York Times" support Democrats more.
But on the other hand, FoxNews focus more on Obama himself. It talks about several his and his government's flaws and using statistical number and historical evidences to support its position. FoxNews Journalism is more subjective. Some of its opinion are infered from data and graphs. According to this new of "FoxNews", I think it support Republicans more.
Conclusion
In this project, our group talk about several expectations of Barack Obama's re-election in 2012 and also discuss two news got from "The New York Times" and "FoxNews". The opinion of these news can control and even change the history. By comparing the two article from two different newspaper companies, we find they have different position for same problem. The New York Times thinks that Obama has higher possibility to be the next president, but ForNews has different ideas. It shows that different mass media will influence people in defferent ways because different media company has its bias. Therefore, when analyzing an issue, people should collect information from different ways. We cannot judge one case if we just read news from one mass media company.
This is very interesting. The breadth of opinions from the different news sources expresses the divide in America very well. I think it is interesting how the New York Times used solid financial information on which to base their data, while Fox used easily biased statistics. Fox News is known world-wide for being conservative, and they will bias their information to continue that tradition. In opposition, the New York Times is more centralist, so they try to avoid bias.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis analysis of the New York Times and of Fox News brings up a great point that sometimes what a news source LEAVES OUT of an article can be the most telling. It seems that Fox News completely left out the financial data because it does not align with their argument. The New York times on the other hand did take a more neutral and unbiased approach, yet they too omitted information (what percentage of Americans are satisfied with the actions of the president and government etc) But that is one of the main points about partial truths. There is no way for one source to completely cover all aspects of an issue, and what it CHOSEN to be included and left out, affects how our history is documented and interpreted.
ReplyDeleteThis point (and the articles you found) are clear examples of Herman and Chomsky's view of the media and how the few individuals in charger (the CHOOSERS) filter information and create a view of the world that reflects and promotes their agenda and interests.
Well put to conclude your analysis, that the mass media cannot be judged on the reporting of one mass agency. But then, can it be trusted to report in any other fashion on the upcoming Presidential election race? This is the central tenant that Herman and Chomsky offer in "Manufacturing consent: a propaganda model," large corporate news conglomerates such as Fox or The New York Times are beholden to so many special interests, and a preexisting consent to their opinion, that the somewhat leftists bent of the Times and conservatively inclined Fox remain fairly static. Stasis occurs of necessity, to sell news, and to appease corporate advertisers, and donors.
ReplyDeleteI found it most interesting that you felt that having a higher campaign budget would implicitly suggest an election victory or campaign success, as if it were a commonly accepted truth. As this may be the case, it would seem to violate the moral ideals of a democracy. And yet campaign finance has been and issue largely ignored by the mass media and by extension, the general public. I agree that Fox News and The New York Times evidently have their own explicit agendas in covering the race for 2012, but reading both still leaves a reader without substantial unbiased campaign information. And why are we talking about perceived candidate success anyway? Why are we not considering whether or not candidates are even fit to preside over the nation based on their own beliefs in their own words? In my opinion, this is done to condition the consumers of mass media to accept the candidates presented, and to so frame the election debate. Fox News and The New York Times need one another to be successful in their propaganda campaigns.
Both agencies filter the news, and have news filtered for them by movers and shakers. Our concern should be with the agendas of these hidden writers of news and not with the figureheads. I would suggest that human desire for connectedness and busy lives victimize ourselves for this type of media acclimation. The media provides us with topics of interest and frames the debate, and we relate to one another with these common threads. It's only human nature, exploited. And it's effective, perpetual. So sit back and ask yourself whether Romney or Obama really are the RIGHT MEN to lead the country? Or are they? Can you be sure? Can Fox or the Times be sure?
ReplyDelete