Fox News still bias toward Obama, but to a lesser degree

Obama's Cabinet Picks Heavy on Washington Experience

Perusing this week's news articles from various media outlets, I noticed something particularly interesting, yet unsurprising; Fox News has practically ceased criticizing now President-elect Barack Obama. Key word: practically.

Despite clear indications that the network's avoided its usual agenda-setting (because of Obama's overwhelming victory), bias is still evident. Take the lead of the article Obama's Cabinet Picks Heavy on Washington Experience for example:

"For months on the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington. But now that he's president-elect, his first potential Cabinet picks indicate that he may bring more years of Washington experience to his administration than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did."

Obama promised change. He didn't promise inexperienced Cabinet members. Suggesting that picking experienced Cabinet members is somehow contradictory to a policy of change is either stupid or biased. Something tells me it's the latter.

Who the experienced individuals are is the subject of interest, or at least it should be. Obama picking individuals who served or held views consistent with the Bush Administration would be cause for criticism. But this is not the case.

In fact, he seems to be keen on veterans of the Clinton Administration, naming Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel was a leading strategist in the efforts to institute universal health care during Clinton's presidency.

To be fair, the lead is the only blatant bias in the article. Fox did include several quotes from Russell Riley, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs. These include the following:

"[Clinton administration veterans] participated in a presidency that is viewed to have its accomplishments and was viewed as well run."

"The argument that Obama people would make ... it's possible to rely on people who know how the levers are pulled, but move it in a different direction than the last eight years."

First "Barack the Vote", now a movie

(Click headline for link to article)

OK, it is now post-election time and we can congratulate President-elect Barack Obama for really "Baracking the vote!" I am sure we can also come to a consensus that the 2008 election was quite eventful, full of surprises, and of course, dramatic as ever. During the election we saw SNL, MAD-TV and many other satirical productions of the events that led up to the final vote. Even after the election, some people just can't let go of the comedic drama. ABC News broke out a recent story about an inevitable movie for the 2008 election.

This article is not bias based on the dictionary definition of the term, but it definitely offers a slanted approach centered on the election being more humorous and amusing than fundamental. This whole idea of making a new movie, "Election 2008: The Movie" seems a bit too far fetched. Granted I found myself laughing while reading the article, I realized how inpractical it was with the point it made. Not only does it offer a fabricated illustration of the recent elections, but it mirrors more parodies that were already revealed on Late Night shows as previously mentioned.

I found the cinemark idea to offer a more satirical idea of the realistic events and would actually take away from the seriousness of the election. Moreover, the movie would display a mockery and ridicule of the candidates involved, such as Senator John McCain, whom the critics mention Ed Harris as a prospective actor for this part and regarding Harris' intended role, say: "I'm sure he can be made to look older."
Most notably of course, they discussed the proposal of Tina Fey playing Governor Sarah Palin, which is no surprise since that was a main focal point of mainstream media during the election.

As for the other participants, it was interesting to read the bogus suggestions for the cast characters such as Barack Obama (Will Smith), Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Cindy McCain, Oprah (by Oprah), Joe Biden, George Bush and we couldn't forget the infamous "Joe the Plumber."

Although I agree that this past election was much different than any others and encompassed many extremes thus making it quite amusing, I would not advocate it as a blockbuster comedy because of its intense distortion of reality.

Suburban singles SOL?

Are suburban singles destined to be alone? Does it mean that since they do not live in a hip, bustling city, they are completely out of the loop when it comes to finding a "mate?" According to this article entitled The Best Cities For Singles on www.forbes.com, the answer would be a resounding "Yes!" 

"For the first time ever, Atlanta tops our list of the best cities for singles. The capital of Georgia and home of Coca-Cola earns the top slot because of its hopping nightlife, relatively high number of singles and sizzling job growth."

By the sounds of this, perhaps Atlanta is the best city for anyone and everyone. 

What really bothered me about this article was the methodology of "coolness," meaning rating the coolness factor of each individual city and comparing them against each other. The fact that "coolness" was an actual method of measurement made me think of junior high cliques and "No Boys Allowed" clubs. 

Though, I'm sure this article was written for a rather young audience, probably aimed at women, it is biased in the way of pertaining to a select social group. After all, how many single, lonely 60-year-olds are going to be searching for a "mate" based on a spicy nightlife or the coolest city?

Overall, this article was an interesting read, but lacking and relatively pointless if you are looking to get anything substantial out of it. 

A Circuit Break

Headline: Why Circuit City Busted, While Best Buy Boomed

It's one thing to report on a major company's financial blunders and giving explanation to why this may have occurred, but it is completely different when the reasons for the fall of a business are not supported by substantial evidence. A reporter's job is to reduntantly use the phrase "he/she said" after any statement that relfects a decision or action not already universally known. Throughout this article about Circuit City's bankruptcy, the writer refers to the issue as results of lack of management or poor customer service; however, she does not cite any sources to back up her arguement. In fact her only two sourcces do not even reflect on any of the issues she raises in the article about why Circuit City busted.

For instance her first reference, David Schick, merely says that business was great at one time but never adapted, and stops there. From that simple statement, the writer drew inferences and exaggerated the claims against the company. Since that was her only quote and source until the end of the story, one could only infer that she based her conclusions on his interview. How does she know about the real-estate issue which she approaches mid-story, or the Web presence neglegence? I did not see any mention of an interview with professionals or even consumers from either of those fields. She does the same thing with Helen Bulwik's inventory statement.

The subject that caught me most off guard was her idea of its customer service resulting most in their failing, according to the reporter anyway. Again, there is no attribution to this statement; her basis is the fact that they laid off higher paid employees to bring in cheaper labor. Couldn't this be a result of the poor economy and not automatically mean poor service? Maybe she could have used a customer's perspective here. Plus, if you search for a particular company's complaints and put just that into a search engine, of course it will come up with thousands of results. I am sure this would also happen with Best Buy, which the writer positively mentions throughout the story.

I can't say I disagree with some of her arguements, but I would not insinuate my opinions in a news story. She could have even focused more on the economic downfall of our nation as a reason for their bankruptcy insted of just saying "it played no small role." I don't know if maybe this reporter had a negative experience at a Circuit City store or what, but even if so, it should in now way reflect in her article.

What do you think??

Love expert got game?

While flipping through the channels Sunday afternoon, I came across a show I had never heard of before, called "The Pick-Up Artist" on VH1, so I decided to tune in. Granted, I don't watch much TV anymore, since I am taking three film classes this semester, my DVD player has been getting all the attention, so I'm sure I have been one of the only people in the dark about this show. This article on vh1.com provides more information, including a summary and links about the series. For those not familiar, the premise of the show is based on transforming eight "socially awkward nerds" into the "Master Pick-Up Artist." The host, Mystery ("former nerd turned best-selling author and ultimate pick-up artist") and his crew teach the guys a lesson about how to talk to/appeal to women and then send them off on little adventures to a bar or other social arenas to try out their new skills, or lack there of. Based on each guy's performance, there are elimination rounds and those who aren't making progress are told "Game over." 

I know I have grossly overanalyzed this series, but there is bias in that the contestants are relying on the teachings and opinions of only one man, Mystery, in order to learn the "language of love."

Secondly, the show is clearly stereotyping poor nerds all over the world, though funny, it is up to everyone's personal judgment to decide what is considered "nerdy" and "awkward" and what is charming and attractive. 

Lastly, the only females who show any kind of authority in the show, share their knowledge of lovemaking and the right things to do to grab and keep a woman's interest. Yet, they do all of this wearing only bras and panties or some kind of racy lingerie. Are we supposed to actually take them seriously? 

Seems like an entertaining show, full of embarrassing moments, girls wearing next to nothing, and plenty of bragging rights for Mystery, but what about the messages the content of the show can send? What happens when this kind of bias content begins to make impressions on viewers' minds, most notably teens? 

What kind of messages about the opposite sex will be impressed on young teenage boys' minds when they see a woman dressed in lingerie sitting in a "pillow room" waiting for each of the "masters in training" to come into the dark room to turn her on? 

On the other hand, most teenage girls are already extremely self-conscious about their bodies and craving attention from boys. What will they think when they see these men slobbering all over half-dressed women, who just happen to be sex analysts? 

Overall, great show for adults if you are in the mood to watch something with seemingly no intellectual depth and lots of laugh-out-loud moments of male humiliation.

Fox Attacks Obama

Video about Bias in Media

Hindsight vision is 20/20. How appropriate that this video is posted the day after Obama is made president elect. While the majority of attacks come from FoxNews, I was surprised to see MSNBC included in the bash-fest. I find it appalling that news sources allow this kind of false information to be leaked into the airwaves influences the fragile minds of young voters. Yet, who am I to complain now. As I said before, hindsight vision is 20/20 and while I hope these news pundits have been reprimanded or even fired, Barack Obama is our next president.

Footsteps of the 2-yr Campaign Trail

The video exclusive, "Choosing a President," narrated by NY Times reporter, Katharine Q. Seelye, reveals a truly one-sided view of the presidential candidates and their journey through the election process to post election today. It is clear to me that she narrates the video from a Democratic perspective by using sarcastic tones and impliciations. The beginning of the video traces their campaign movements and what supporters have said in their praise. It is not until the narrator begins to speak that the video turns into a biased history in Obama's defense.

The video is split into 3 chapters that describe the campaign trail. Chapter one focuses on the political parties involved and their backgrounds, two regards the candidates, their views and movements and three's focal point is the voters.

Her first statement when tracking the candidates on their trail describes Senator McCain as "unconventional and freewilling" whereas she considers President-elect Obama as "traditional and crafty." Granted the terms unconventional and freewilling do not necessarily connotate a negatvie meaning, when you compare the two sets of qualities for the men, it is evident that the story reflects a more positive image of Obama than McCain. (This video was posted prior to the election, thus before Obama's victory.)

As the video progresses to map their trail, she gives McCain less appeal as a presidential candidate and is more aggressive to point out his faults and weaknesses. Yet, when she refers to Obama she is adamant on poitning out his strengths as a future president. She also made it clear that she does not support the "unpopular" President Bush in his efforts either.

The narrator puts emphasis on certain phrases she uses to describe Obama and McCain, usually indicative of negative feelings toward the latter of the two. She also uses very sarcastic tones (around the 7:30 minute point) when she said "McCain bounced from theme to theme until he finally settled on one," and "Obama remained consistent," then later (around 11:15 point) "he made a maverick move" regarding his choice of Palin for running mate.

Although there is some positive regard of McCain during his supporters' interviews, the narrator indicated her lack of support for him, and in Obama's favor for his policies as well as the way he has handled the campaign trail thus far.