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

It's Not Fantasy, It's "Magical Realism"

As you probably remember (if you're in Mr. Starace's class at least), Ms. Heitz semi-recently gave us this article explaining what magical realism is and how it differs from fantasy. As I read it, I became more and more irritated, finally deciding that I needed to write something demonstrating how it is emblematic of a significant problem in how those who analyze literature view certain genres. Luckily, I have a blog where there is a possibility that someone might actually read my rant on the subject, so here are my thoughts on why magical realism is not a distinct literary genre, but a category of fantasy literature. Literary critics, wanting to feel more discerning than the average reader, are loath to ascribe literary merit to popular "genre fiction": fantasy, science fiction, mystery, horror, etc. They were thus presented with a conundrum when a new style of writing arose in Latin America. It was full of supernatural elements, and thus fit the standard defi...

A Song of Ice and Fire: Storytelling as Worldbuilding

This post is part of a series which I hope to write in the relatively near future, documenting pieces of entertainment media which I currently view as significant influences on the way I view what makes a story good. Beyond simply serving as writing practice, the purpose of these is largely so that in future years I can look back and laugh at the things I thought were so important when I was in high school (or be shocked by my prognosticative powers, I suppose, though that seems less likely). I'm putting the series here for the moment because it fits in fairly well with some of the media blog posts I did for Mr. Starace and doing so reduces the number of places I'll need to look to find my past writings in the future. Anyway, on to A Song of Ice and Fire (which [just in case someone else is reading this] is the low-magic fantasy epic by George R. R. Martin which was adapted into the HBO show Game of Thrones. ) The primary reason why A Song of Ice and Fire (which I will hence...

How Not to Make an Audience Care

I recently watched Thor: Ragnarok , the latest in Marvel's seemingly endless torrent of superhero comedy/action movies. While I generally enjoyed it (at least compared to other films in the same genre), I found myself rather bored during many of the scenes which were intended to be the most dramatic. The movie puts an enormous amount of effort into epic music, gratuitous explosions, and intricately animated fight sequences, but many of its action scenes just felt like something to be waited through until something more interesting happened. In fact, I think you could cut out a solid 10 minutes of absurdly acrobatic duels and massacring of minions and the film would't actually lose anything of value. Now, I should say that I am not bored by all action scenes. For example, Mad Max: Fury Road managed managed to keep me on the edge of my seat, and that movie is probably around 50% giant explosions. So what exactly did Thor: Ragnarok lack? After a fair amount of thought, I have...

Jacob's Font of Perspicacity

Search This Blog