Biased News

The Oreilly Factor: President Obama and your approval

I am sorry, I couldn't upload this video because it is copyrighted by Fox News. 

This week, I decided that I would write my rhetoric post on biased news.  I am not completely trying to bash the other party, simply showing the sometimes blatant, sometimes covert biases among the supposed impartial news coverage.  While I chose to use a Republican show as my example, I am not denying that the Democrats may do the same thing.

News stations are riddled with rhetoric.  Which news station you watch determines the view that you may get on an issue.  Some - such as CNN or MSNBC - are decidedly Democratic, while others - such as FOX News - are rather Republican.  The same concept applies to newspapers, websites, and any other kind of media.  They convey their message in a way that supports one of the parties while opposing the other.

I chose this news reel because I think it is a good example of using the media and your words to lead people to a certain conclusion.  Bill O'Reilly chooses the information that he displays very strategically.  He portrays President Obama as a president whom most people in our country disapproves of.  He shows the states that will be wildcards for the election, then makes sure that he mentions that Obama does not have the majority approval in any of them. 

Specifically, in the video, around 1:20-1:47, I noticed a contradiction in his speech.  He says "We are not in the business to promote any political candidate; you're smart enough to know who you want to vote for."  then he proceeds to specify which is the better candidate.  "If the Republicans can stay on message and Mr. Obama is incompetant in economic matters, the GOP has a better than even chance..."  Excuse me?  Does that sound like he is promoting one candidate, or rather one party, over the other?  Very sneaky...

I think it is interesting that this happens in the news.  Using our concepts, I may say that the reporters use descriptions, like "incompetant" to disenchant voters against a certain candidate.  They distort the data in order to inspire confidence in one party over the other.  In this, he stresses that Obama does not have a majority in certain states and that only 10 states have an approval rating over 50%.

One thing that I must give credit to Mr. O'Reilly for is when he mentions how Democrats will "unleash hell on Mitt Romney"  because of his wording.  He pokes fun at the fact that each political party uses what they say out of context.  Mitt Romney once said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." within one of his comments.  O'Reilly says that the Democrats will use that phrase to destroy Romney's campaign.  But by bringing this up, O'Reilly sort of nips the problem in the bud before it can happen.  Now people will be on the look out for that sort of foul play. 

I think this is a good example of how news stations use rhetoric to push one political party on the viewers.  The way they say things, the examples they use, the facts they show; all of this effectively leads to one conclusion.  The same evidence could be put on a different news channel and the viewers could come to a completely different conclusion.  It's all about how they portray it.  It's all about the rhetoric.