Skip to main content

Two Very Different Takes on the GOP Tax Bill

The Senate's Republican majority recently passed a bill which would dramatically overhaul the American tax code; on this fact everyone seems to agree. However, the varying language used by different news media outlets reveals that despite their pretensions of objectivity they have directly opposed opinions on the bill's merit.

For example, the word choice of Fox News' article on the subject is quite supportive of the legislation. The headline is resoundingly positive, including words like "victorious" and "confident" and speaking of "avoiding shutdown." It goes on to quote a number of Republican politicians who voted for or otherwise supported the bill, without including any opposing viewpoint. In fact, the only reference to Democrats in the article is a segment about how Republican concerns that they would attempt a government shutdown in protest of the bill were averted. Throughout this, word choice remains consistently positive, with the article describing those involved as "upbeat," "eager" and "optimistic" about their "success."

On the other side of the aisle, the Washington Post's coverage of the tax plan is thoroughly negative. It is described as "unpopular" in the headline, and polls demonstrating resistance to the bill are mentioned twice in the article. There is also a paragraph describing an analysis that it would add greatly to the deficit. In addition, the story covers the Democrats' opposition and quotes at length one of the senators who opposed the bill.

These two pieces are merely symptoms of a greater trend: ostensibly neutral reporting on any topic is in fact subtly expressing strong opinions on the subject.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do We Really Want the Trump Administration Censoring the Media?

MissRepresentation was an excellent documentary. Before watching it, I was already aware of many of the problems with the representation of women in media which it illuminates, but I was still impressed at how comprehensive and powerful its argument was. However, I disagree with the film on one major point: I do not think that media content should be further regulated by the government or any other organization, even with the purpose of reducing the objectification of women. To see why this kind of regulation could be so problematic, it is helpful to look at the history of media censorship in the United States. From 1930 to 1968, almost all American movies were produced under the  Motion Picture Production Code , a set of rules governing what could be shown onscreen. The rules were intended to safeguard public virtue by eliminating immoral content from the media and were created by the film industry itself to preempt government regulation. While the idea of such a code may seem l...

Unconventional = Good

Anyone who analyzes enough entertainment media quickly begins to notice a few patterns. Every story has a (usually white and male) protagonist who, along with his band of supporting characters, faces some kind of conflict, defeats the villain, and lives happily ever after. This is (an oversimplified summary of) the Hero's Journey, that pervasive force which consigns so many stories to the dustbin of sameness. This common theme makes all media somewhat similar, but within specific genres there are many more of these similarities, so much so that one quickly realizes that the vast majority of stories are just a bunch of prefabricated parts assembled in a predictable order with a new coat of paint slapped on to trick people into thinking its something different. For evidence of this, I direct you to go to  TV Tropes , an incredible database of fictional tropes (common elements found in many different pieces of media). Once you're there, find the page of a movie you like and scroll...

Narrowcasting on Youtube

The discussion of narrowcasting we had in class reminded me of this fascinating video on the surprisingly complex process which determines what ad you see when you click on a video on Youtube. The short version is this: In the millisecond between you clicking the video and the ad playing, Youtube's algorithms analyze the video (looking at its title, views, comments, etc.) and analyze you (trying to determine your age, gender, location, etc. based on your watch history) and then give those pieces of information to the algorithms of the advertisers, which have been programmed to target certain kinds of videos and specific viewer demographics. The advertiser algorithms then hold an auction to determine what commercial you see when the video loads. While this process is certainly useful for Youtube, advertisers and content creators, it has some disturbing implications. If you and someone else watch the exact same video, you may well see completely different ads. This, as with all ...