Political Analysis

Palin Delivers, But Doubts Linger
One debate will not erase doubts that have been building about Palin's capacity to serve as vice president

Dan Balz, a staff writer for the Washington Post, attempted to be a non-biased commentator or “analyst” on the debates last night. Unfortunately, like many journalists in the field today he just can’t keep his political sentiments to himself. While I tried to find an article extremely left-winged, the only news sources truly republican seemed to be those owned by Disney (ABC news), all other “big name” news sources are rooting for Obama. In the instance of this article, Palin Delivers, But Doubts Linger, one needn’t look further than the headline to realize what the overlying theme is…

“…Biden did all he could Thursday to make sure that would not happen. If Palin was the surprise, he was the steady and experienced voice.”

Balz definitely knows who he is voting for and finds it appropriate to be partial to one candidate. His selective use of vocabulary condones Palin and praises Biden. For instance, “Palin, who struggled with questions in televised interviews, came to Thursday's debate well briefed.”

Balz used the word struggle and well-briefed to belittle the Governor.


“Biden was direct, not verbose, and his answers came crisply in contrast to Obama's more studied and sometimes pausing style of speaking.”

The word crisp and direct evoke a sense of leadership and preparedness. Although Biden has spent more time in government than Palin, Balz does not mention that both are briefed beforehand.

This article appeared in The Washington Post Friday, October 3, 2008 on Page A01

Pick Up Lines: Pass or Fail?

I found this video on Forbes.com which is full of great lifestyle articles. I am sure we have all used a pick-up line at least once in our lives, especially males, as stereotyped in the video. This may seem like a biased argument, yet it is logical.
I watched the video with an open mind and found it to be quite funny. The best part is that I have heard at least two of the lines dropped by both males and females--either directed to me or my friends.

An interesting thing about this video is the title: "Striking Out: The Worst Pick-Up Lines," which contradicts the messages in the video. To be honest, I kind of liked the lines in a quirky, sappy romantic way. Therefore, they really cannot call these the worst ones because what if someone found their true love or life-long partner from one of these particular lines?

Also, how could they be the worst when clearly, from the video, a couple of the lines worked once or twice, hence "SUCCESS" pops up rather than "REJECTED." I would think that if this article was a ploy against pick-up lines than they would not include the success rate in the video.

The "actor" uses the same pick-up line: "Excuse me, you're legs must be tired because you've been running through my mind all day" twice until it works, which is not very fair. In fact, that's cheating. This is not trial and error or play till you win.

Another thing that makes this story quite slanted is the fact that the reporter performing this experiment is approaching mere strangers on the streets of Manhattan in the middle of what seems to be a work day. Obviously people are preoccupied with their daily routine and not interested in being picked up by a random "creepy" guy throwing out pick-up lines like candy to children. Not to mention, he sounds rehearsed!

Instead, they at least could have tested this at a club at night club when it is expected, then the results of whether these pick-up lines are worthy or not would be more accurate based on the right context of analysis. I enjoyed the subject and found it very creative and humorous, but I think there are those few things they could have done to make the story more believable or reliable!

P.S.--I apologize for all of the ads before the actual video begins.

Targeting Those on the Run,,,,

Everybody knows the talk show host Jon Stewart and the famous Daily Show. On his shows Sarah Palin Choice at the beginning of September, when the current VP runner on the GOP side Sarah Palin was first introduced, he severely attacks Palin for her ability to run the country along with McCain (supposedly if they win the election this coming November). Palin is not the only target of the episode, Senator McCain is the other subject of criticism.

The show would have been fine if it is pure criticism. But what is inappropriate about it is the use of offensive language and details against the governors, or frankly speaking, to debase them in front of the audience.

First he calls her McCain's third wife. In just one sentence, he apparently made it clear to the audience that he was intentionally making fun of the GOP President and VP runners.

Not only does he He also made a joke about Palin's glass frames, which is something totally irrelevant to the fact that she is running for VP.

Mr. Stewart takes into account distracting information regarding Senator McCain's age and health issues: "This 72 year old, 4 to 5 times faced cancer guy..."

He also verbally attack Palin in a very sarcastic way, judging her resume only appropriate for a "Northern exposure reunion show."

Palin may or may not be using her glasses as a tool to generate public attention, but Mr. Stewart makes it seem that way, that she is abusing her so-called stylish glass frames. He calls her "the sexy librarian?"
"For the first time in America, a woman has reached the highest levels of being used as a cheap political deploy."

The sad thing is that the audience find this amusing.

Fox News attacks Obama, so what's new?

Barack's Biggest Blunders: Charting the course of Obama's flip flops.

Since my first blog post for the Unbiased Tabloid was about Fox News, I was going to steer clear of the network for subsequent posts. I didn't want to give readers the idea that my criticism of Fox News resulted from my democratic affiliation. I will proclaim my support for Senator Barack Obama, so as to not give the impression that my blogs about media bias are in themselves biased. Full disclosure is paramount to overcoming media bias, a notion that Fox News rejects (publicly denying any right-wing reporting).

The decision to blog about Fox again came after I stumbled across one of the most blatant displays of political bias I've ever seen: a video segment on Hannity's America called Barack's Biggest Blunders: Charting the course of Obama's flip flops. The video features a number of examples in which Obama seems to contradict himself. These include his denouncement of Reverend Wright after refusing to "disown" him and his voting in favor of the FISA bill after stating his opposition to any bill that would provide such immunity for telecommunication companies. Some of the examples were valid. Others were just inaccurate attacks, such as Obama's vowing to expand Bush's faith based initiative, which gives tax dollars to religious groups that provide community service; Hannity said, "it's the same program that Liberals have complained about for years." The key word here is Liberals, not Obama. And still others were just ridiculous - I can't believe we're still talking about flag pins.

By this point, you may be saying to yourself, "Hannity's America is a talk show; opinions are permitted," and you're right. But where do you think the decisions about the contents of Fox programs come from? They come from the bigwigs, the top network executives who call for conservative coverage. Do you think they would ever allow such a segment about McCain?

The fact is Fox hires republicans so its right-wing viewpoint stays consistent. If you don't believe this just take a look at it's staff, which now includes former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Oh, and Huckabee has just been given his own news show.

And just to make one thing clear: I may be motivated to write about certain topics within media bias because I am a Democrat. But I do not criticize Fox because I am a Democrat. I do it because Fox is biased; thus, it misguides people's perceptions and attitudes about important issues.

Headline: The 'Grim Sleeper'

$500,000 reward for Los Angeles serial killer

by Adam Housley, reporter for The Los Angeles Bureau

This article was posted on FOXnews.com as part of their On the Scene segment.

This article caught my attention immediately with the headline. What could be more newsworthy than learning about a pending investigation to track down a serial killer? Granted, the 'grim sleeper' is located in Los Angeles, but with having close family only about 10 minutes from LA, the topic hit home for me. 

Being a journalism major, what I expected to learn from Housley was firstly, why is this man referred to as the 'grim sleeper'? What makes him different from other serial killers? According to police and their records, when was he last active in the area? 

Unfortunately, what I got was a small percentage of facts, along with slanted coverage toward the LAPD's ongoing investigation and bias in Housley's personal opinions. Housley covered this story as if he was glorifying the public's presumed interest and intrigue in examining serial killers, because they are so rare. This was an opinion, irrelevant to the story and an overall assumption. 

Housley uses phrases like "before he strikes again" which felt out of place. While I was reading through the article I felt like I was reading a film review or the plot of a new horror flick.

The only information I was able to sift out about the 'grim sleeper' was that he is a man, he has been active in LA, he targets young, black female prostitutes and the rounded out dates of when murders have occurred. 

"People always seem to be fascinated with serial killers. From the times of 'Jack the Ripper' across the pond, to the Zodiac to the 'Green River Killer', movies/books/articles have all repeated and investigated the horrific accounts of multiple murder. One reason for the interest might be the thought that these brutal murderers are few and far between."

"That thought may be changing right in front of us, as DNA begins to link more murders together. Such is the case here in Los Angeles, where murders from the late 1980's have now been tied to murders in the late 1990's and even up to January 1st 2007."

I had to question how the LAPD knows the murders are linked. What proof do they have? What is the connection? How is DNA  helping to link more murders together? What advancements in technology, if this applies, is aiding in the investigation? And lastly, if the 'grim sleeper's' last known activity was back in January 2007, why is it important that the public be notified of this murderer again at this time? What makes it timely and newsworthy? 

Housley uses a few quotes from LAPD Chief of Detectives Charley Beck and LA City Councilman Bernard Parks, who is the former LAPD Chief, which strengthens his article, but still no relevant information is given to readers. 

"The LAPD has 7 detectives assigned to this case full-time and so far all they have to go on is a vague description by a survivor from the late 1980's . The FBI has also offered to help, but right now they may need a little luck and hope that this guy slips up."

That statement instills a lot of confidence. Housley gives a positive slant toward the officers who are working on this case, but also places them in the "what else can they possibly work on with the little information they have" safety position. In a way he seems to be letting them off the hook and giving an excuse for the stagnant pace of the case. 

I can't figure out whether Housley wrote this article in 15 minutes before deadline or he just wanted to dig up a case and talk about serial killers. Either way, I was shocked by the unprofessional layout and obvious careless reporting in a matter that should have been given much more concern and attention to detail. 

Not Again!

Headline: New voting glitches raise concerns in Florida

Welcome back to Palm Beach County, where the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Alex Johnson and Kerry Sanders published this story virtually dismissing any ethics involved with their journalism. Although many facts and figures were presented, there was an obvious liberal tone to the article.

For instance-

Off to court they went. A state judge ordered another tally. No result was announced because, while the missing 3,500 votes were found in a warehouse, a fresh batch of 159 that were counted the first time could not be read.

Although the 2000 presidential election in Florida was confusing and misunderstood by many residents, the journalists in this article attribute many of the blunders to the government. Not taking into account the elderly population and the stereotypical absentmindedness attributed to them.

Although the journalists present both sides of the story, the judge and government officials are portrayed in a negative light and are literally made fun of throughout the article.

It is a shame that of all media outlets, MSNBC shows bias on the TODAY show. A shame.

MSNBC ran this story on September 24, 2008 on the TODAY SHOW on NBC. It was posted on www.MSNBC.com later that day.

Headline: Girls discuss suggestive photos sent to ex-coach

I found this to be an interesting article about an issue that surrounds us in everything we do, especially as college students. The main premise of this article, set in Binghamton, NY is a follow-up story revealing the latest news facts on a recent trial based on a coach's prior sexual offenses to his players.

From my understanding, this is a high school field hockey team which Todd Broxmeyer coached and imposed sexual feelings as well as force of acts on the girls. Though this article lacks significant or blatant biases, the reporter implies slanted views that could be taken as her own beliefs of the situation.

As a journalism major, I know that in reporting it is practically unlawful to put any kind of emotion into an article and therefore not insinuate an opinion or side on the issue, especially in hard-news stories, such as this one. In order to avoid this occurring, they simply have to use more attribution of sources--when in doubt, ATTRIBUTE; this reporter did not always do that.

The reporter, Nancy Dooling, probably had no intention of offering an argument in the case or providing any information that she believes the accusations are true or false or that Broxmeyer is guilty or innocent. However, I saw right through the article and realized that she obviously has a viewpoint in this, and implicitly stated it throughout the article.

For instance, she states:
"She took a photograph of herself in panties and bra and sent it to him in November or December of 2007" regarding one of the girls on Broxmeyer's team.

Where did she obtain this information? Did Dooling actually witness the girl taking the pictures of herself and send them, or did the girl tell her this, or maybe it's just a guess from someone or an assumption? We will never know; therefore, Dooling should have attributed this statement to the source of which she got it, otherwise not used it at all. I say this based on my experience from past journalism courses here at Brockport and the standards of which we were expected to write articles.

This exact lack of attribution occurs again directly following that statement when she says: "Broxmeyer, then 37, encouraged the same player to come to his private, independent practices and he'd help her obtain a college scholarship."

Again, how does she know?

Another example of how Dooling is presenting bias information and not simply factual reporting is when she explains a former occurrence between Broxmeyer and a 17-year-old girl, former player, in which the two had consensual sex. Clearly if the sex was consensual it was not illegal rape, but based on age it would be constituted as statuatory rape accprding to New York state laws. Dooling reports on this as being a crucial part of the trials.

As a reader I feel like she put this in to reveal that Broxmeyer is a "bad guy" since he is consentually sleeping with teenage girls in his "Lisle apartment, which he shared with his girlfriend," according to Dooling's article.

I do not think this would effect the charges of which he is being prosecuted for rape, defined as forced or non-consensual sex, and child pornography. So why did she include it in this follow-up article telling us about the trials Broxmeyer is facing due to rape? I took this as Dooling's sly way of inciting that basically he is a pig because he is not only having sex with young women he coached, but also cheating on his girlfriend in their home. Yes, it provides drama and sparks some reader interest, but that is what I deem as "sensationalized news."

Lastly, Dooling says in the article that "The young woman testified she obtained a college scholarship to play field hockey." Again, so what? How does this apply to the issue-at-hand? This implies that the girl received the scholarship because she slept with her coach who also promised to help others gain scholarships.

I have my own opinions on this issue in its entirety but when writing a hard-news article on such a controversial topic, I would be annoyingly conscious of attributing almost all of my facts to the deserving sources.