The news is erupting right now regarding protests that are occurring throughout the Middle East regarding an anti-Islam film made in the United States. Read/watch the articles and/or videos on these webpages. As you are watching/reading, take notes on the specific language used by each website. Do any of them feel biased? If so, what is the bias and how do you know? Do you feel like you have a better perspective of the issue now that you have visited multiple sites? What would your perspective have been if you only went to one?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19600542
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/anti-islam-filmmaker/index.html
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/14/161119154/inciting-outrage-film-spurs-delicate-u-s-response
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/14/violence-spreads-across-middle-east-over-anti-islam-film/
I do understand the situation more from visitng these cites however, one in particular is biased. Hillary Clinton's response to the video has many of ehr own opinions in it. She brings up the point that Americans are free to express their opinion "now matter how distasteful they may be". This is vvery biased on her part. The video, however, was not very biased more straightforward. It seemed to just give the facts. However, I then watched a second video about on of the actresses that was in the movie. They had made sure that she was presented as extremely sorry and regretful, and they made her, overall, look like a good person, but stressing how lucky they were that she was there because she "didn't even want them to know her name" and because she "was so shocked by what the movie actually meant". I do understand more, the outrage and why there have been so many riots because of theis film.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the articles and listening to the videos I do feel like i have a better perspective on the topic discussed. If I had only read one article, or listened to only one video, I would not have that great of a perspective over the issue. The positive side to reading more than one article or watching more than one video is that you hear different sides, thoughts, and concerns over the issue. I do, however, think that the article about Hillary Clinton's statements was biased. In the article she gave more of her own opinions rather than stating more fact based statements.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen i first visited these sites and read about the actual story, the language used in the stories was very simplea and American-based. I felt as if the stories were trying to show an innocence from the American side and portray Sam (the creator of the movie) as being an outsider to their own country. In a way, the stories tried to capture Sam as being a bad guy and that they could not do anything about the video because it would disobey first right amendments. I felt as if the CNN article was very biased about the story and about Sam since they made sure to mention the negative aspects, such as bank fraud and identity fraud, to the world. I believe they used this language to communicate that the United States is a good place. Some other language i felt was used in each of the websites was using the text to create that the video was more of a political video instead of a religious hate video attacking people from other countries. After visiting multiple sites, i feel more all-knowing about the situation. I received a viewpoint of all sides of the story to get a better understanding and fair judgement of everyone's thoughts, which helped to disclude the bias i found in some of the websites. I mayhave been more onesided if i had only visited one website, since each website points out a different side (or truth to the story).
ReplyDeleteI did not feel like many of the videos I watched were biased. However, there was one video that interviewed a girl who was in the video that started the riot. I felt like that was more biased than others because she looked very sorry and acted like she really had no idea what the video was really going to be about. But yet she did not want her name out. Most of other videos just stated the facts and told what was happening trying to make people aware of it. I feel like I have a better perspective on it. I did not know this was even going on until I watched those videos and read some of the articles. I do not think that my perspective would have changed if i had only visited one site because most of them said the exact same things but just in different ways.
ReplyDeleteMost of the web sites were biased in some forms. The viedo produced by CNN seemed escpeially biased. They were mainly focasing on the film maker. They did not really talk about the killings overseas and the mass chaos. They just talked about how they were searching for the film maker how had multiple identies. This seemed very bias because in a way they did not want to admit that things were going wrong over seas. Then I thought the NPR article had a very unique type of bias. It talked about many differnt sides and how the Islamic people feel and how things are going here in the US. I did not feel a strong sence of bias in that particular article. However, it did just state differnt things that were going on more from the US side. Then in the Fox news article the author baisically focased on what was going on over seas. They tried to show how that although the Americans did make this video, they reprocutions were way to extreme. It took a very negiiive side against the people trying to protest over seas. I deffinatly feel like I know more about the situaiton due to reading the three differnt articles/videos. If I would have only read one then I would not know the many differnt sides like I do now. For example if I had only read the CNN article, I would not know very much information about what was going on over seas. It is always important to look at all the opinions and facts when gathering informaiton.
ReplyDeleteThese videos have educated me more on the subject. I go home and watch the news every night with my mom and heard about this issue. I couldn't really tell when the news was biased. If anything they were trying to not put the blame on Americans overall. After listening and reading more on the subject I have learned more about the film maker and how the rest of the world is reacting.
ReplyDeleteCNN and Fox News both spoke out about how horrible these acts of violence were to our country, which leads one to believe there could perhaps be some bias involved. However, all the articles/websites discuss the topic of the movie's director and his mysterious fake names and addresses. They even question whether this movie was produced soley to aggrivate the Islamic countries for his own hidden agenda. I do believe that the websites try and approach the issue each differently, whether they are being biased or trying to come at the topic at a different angle is up to the reader. I would say that I have learned more about the subject by reading multiple articles on the topic. This helps fill the holes that we do not understand with the story. I do not think my perspective would have changed had I not read all the different articles. Each article went into detail on different parts of the story so the story did not exactly change.
ReplyDeleteThe article posted with the video on BBC's site was factual and it didn't seem biased. I was unable to watch the video so I don't know if it was unbiased as well. The article from NPR was informational and mostly about how diplomats reacted namely Hilary Clinton. She was very careful with her words, so as not to offend the Middle East or go against the freedom of speech. The article from fox news was factual, but the word choice was biased, against rioters. It makes sense, being an American news site. Going to several sites gives the reader a better picture of the event as a whole. If I had only gone to one I would only know what it told me, but if I went to several, I would see some information repeated, meaning that it's important, and I would read about different lesser events. Altogether I would get a list of different events from the multiple sites as opposed to the few events from the one. I also get to see what are facts and what are opinions by comparing word usage.
ReplyDeleteThe first link shows the actions of the angered Islams because of the video that was posted. However, it only shows their wrong doings, not the United States. The second link was about tyring to find the film maker. The language used in the video would make US citizens feel threatened by this man because of all the identities he has used and what he is doing to the US. I do think it would have been better to hear from the man inside the house to get a full perspective. I do not think these two were biased. The third link, to me, seemed a little biased to me because they only gave one side of the story, not both. They did not have another speaker for the other side give his/her opinion. The last link to me was a tad bit biased in the fact that it only gave parts from speeches that could be taken the wrong way. Other than that minor defect, it was the realest article that I read in my mind because it gave both parts equally. I do feel like I have a better perspective because I read multiple articles because I did not know this was happening and it gave me different views from different interviewers and people from the Islamic territory. If I would have only visited one site, I would have only gotten one perspective.
ReplyDeleteI did notice some bias in Hillary Clinton's speech. She gave her opinion about the anti-Islam film. Clinton said that the video was disgusting and it was wrong to hate such a great religion. However, most of the websites gave only information about the topic, rather than inserting their own opinions. I believe that it was helpful to visit numerous websites because although they all gave information on the same matter, I could assume that the information was true because it was restated multiple times. If I only watched the CNN video, I would not know that there are many problems going on in Islam because of the video. The video on CNN's website focused on the creater of the video, rather than the issues it caused. The Hillary Clinton video mainly expressed her own opinion, and the issues the United States was faced with because of the video. I almost feel like all of the websites need to give more information about what is happening in Islam, and the reactions of the people. Although some videos and websites stated that the US Ambassador was killed, and a KFC was set on fire, I would still like to know more details about the Islamic problems. It could also be considered somewhat bias that the United States websites are giving more information about the United States reaction to the video, rather than Islam's reaction.
ReplyDeleteCNN and Fox News feel biased towards are country. They say that the islamic people where violent and that they were very out of control. They say that they cannot identify the man that made the video because he did not come up registered as a citizen of either country. However, they did speak to both of the producers and got comments from them. They mainly said that they thought he was a christian man and that he was very spiritual. I belioeve that these two sites were biased because they tried to downplay our country's invovlement in the situation as much a possbile. They were also very descrpitive and dramtaic about what was happening in the other countries. I feel that know that I have visited many different sites with many different opinions on the matter I have gained a better understanding of what this really is about. Most of the sites basically said that same things but they have their own personal bias on the matter. My perspective would have been very tunnel visioned because I would not have had futher understanding than what the first site how intially told me. I would have been biased with that particular site and I would not have a well-rounded idea for myself. It was very benefical to me to visit other sites so that I had a good understanding on that matter.
ReplyDeleteOn the CNN video, I noticed that they talked a lot about the man that made the video and his past. They gave several reasons as to why he isn't a good man. They researched all of his background information, and found that there were reasons he had so many names. They asked a lot of questions that they already knew the answser to. One thing that interested me was that they interviewed people that know him and could give some information on him. I felt as though most of these were bias, using information that was part of the filmmaker's past. It seemed as though they wanted Americans to shut him out and dislike him. They felt bias, because they were giving out knowledge that made Americans not want to like him, because he wasn't a good person. Although most of them seemed bias, I thought that fox news did a good job by just giving pure information. They quoted several different things, and didn't make the topic all about going against them. I do feel like I have a better perspective being able to read several different sites. I think if I would have only went to one site, then my own thoughts and opinions would be centralized around the information they gave me.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the sites were only slightly biased. Hillary Clinton's video was biased because she spoke of her own opinions, and the CNN video with the actress from the movie tried to make her seem innocent by having her say that she didn't know what the movie was and she didn't even know the directors true identity. Mostly, however, I thought that the different stories were rather straightforward about the information. The first thing I did was read the NYT article about the situation, which was quite detailed. That story alone gave me much of the information about what is happening. When I looked at the other sites, I learned not only what had happened since the video, which is what NYT specified upon, but also more about the video itself and the director. I definitely have a better perspective on the predicament now that I have looked at multiple pieces on it. Only one article may not have given me all of the information, or may have made it seem less serious.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the site about Hillary Clinton's speech first. From reading about her speech i could see how she was biased in what she said. She believes that we have the right to go against other religions and be free with it no matter how bad it can get. On one of the other sites it was talking about how some people believed that the creator of the movie was not a bad guy and that he was not like every one else. This is bias in that they see him differently than everyone else does.
ReplyDeleteI have learned many things about this situation since initially hearing about it. I had heard about the violence but these articles and sites helped me to learn more about why exactly this violence was going on. I think that the article on NPR about Hillary Clinton was biased. Mostly because she puts some of her own beliefs in the speech that she is giving. I did not really feel that the news sites with videos were biased because I thought they were just reporting from the area effected. Through watching these videos on multiple sites I have had many different information thrown at me and I have learned a lot more than if I had only went to one because each news site had some of the same information but they also had a lot of different information which I found interesting.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and listening to the four articles on the websites I think that each of them showed a little bias in some way. After I read BBC's article I could tell that they were slightly biased against the Islams becuase of the way they defended the video's innonence. In this article I felt like they thought that the maker of the video was only exercising his freedom of speech. In the next article by CNN it was a video in which they tried to get an interview out of the videomaker. I could tell in this video that they were slightly biased against the videomaker becuase they called him a "criminal", mentioned that he had spent time in jail, and said that he "Doesn't want to be found for a good reason. Compared to BBC's article which said that the videomaker was exercising his freedom of speech this one seemed much more biased against the videomaker. In the article by NPR I felt like they were also biased against the videomaker becuase they took the story from Hilary Clinton's point of view. They used her quotes like, "this video is disgusting". They also nver really seemed to defend the video in any way so I got the feeling that they were too biased against the video. In the last article by fox news I felt the least amount of bias. If any, I thought they might have sided with the video maker slightly becuase they mentioned that he was exercising freedom of speech. Picking out bias was very challenging, but after I realized those small details I realized that after I read the articles I felt one way or the other after each one depending on the bias used.
ReplyDeleteThe biased part about the whole thing was Hillary Clinton's response to the video. Even though she said it was not right and to her it was very wrong, American's are allowed to have the freedom of speech. I do feel like I have a better perspective of the whole issue since now I have visited different websites. By reading mulitple articles and listening to videos it gave more opinions and thoughts about the whole thing. Before hearing about this situaiton in class I had not even known what was going on.
ReplyDeleteThe site that had the most media bias in my opinion was the npr site. All it had was Ciltan and her state deperatments opinions on what happened. However the rest of the coverage was mostly fair and gave only the They mostly all said the same thing but they all had a little bit of a diffent focus. Fox reported on the violence in the middle east and cnn reported on the director of the film.
ReplyDeleteI feel the news is biased. Where the news is coming from, and their own perspective plays an integral role on their personal opinion. It is part of our culture today, to generally not purposefully offend others. However, this is not always the case, for example in this attack. The CNN website went into great depth with the details of the topic. They described how the scene of the movie was placed and how the actors were tricked into thinking they were acting in a completely different movie. The Fox news report tells about the response from the middle-easterners as well as the response in America. At the bottom of the article it says "The Associated Press contributed to this report". I believe I learned different perspectives by visiting multiple websites. Having more than one source can increase validity.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the news was biased. In some cases, you could tell that the news anchors or authors were taking steps to avoid any further anger from the Islamic people while still trying to give out accurate news. I think visiting several sites helped me gain knowledge about the current situation. If I just went to one I would probably have a different perspective, but visiting multiple allowed me to put all of their ideas together and sort out the truth.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the news was biased. In some cases, you could tell that the news anchors or authors were taking steps to avoid any further anger from the Islamic people while still trying to give out accurate news. I think visiting several sites helped me gain knowledge about the current situation. If I just went to one I would probably have a different perspective, but visiting multiple allowed me to put all of their ideas together and sort out the truth.
ReplyDeleteI felt as if the Fox News and NPR and CNN articles gave the most biased vibes out of all of the websites listed. I know because the article felt more "American-centric", while the BBC article felt more worldly. But overall I feel as if some details were being left out in many of the articles. I believe that if I were to have only visited one site I would only get fragments of the whole truth. After visiting multiple sites and getting similar facts and details matching, I feel as if I'm definitely more educated on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe language used by all the websites are pretty much the same except for one-the one that discusses Hillary Clinton's speech. There is no reason for anything of this nature to occur of course but we still have to respect others. She doesn't respect others by saying her opinions and how they don't fit with American beliefs. You still have to respect though. I know more about the situation by visiting the websites but it seems the same responses as prior similar situations. I'm not going into detail about that. Another thing I noticed is that since the U.S is a well-known country being involved, that is the focus and not the other countries such as Germany. There is still a lot being concealed by the government.
ReplyDeleteI had heard about this issue a little bit, but not in detail. I feel that the one with Hillary Clinton was biased. She was stating more of her own opinion. I feel like I have a better understanding and perspective on the issue now that I have read. I learned what really was going on and found out more details. I think that it is better to look at more articles than just one because you can get different information and get different thoughts about what is going on. It does not limit you to just one aspect of the story. It broadens your thoughts and feelings about the issue.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I have a better understanding of the situation now that I have visited these sites. I feel like all of the sites are biased a little bit in their own ways. Firstly, I felt like a lot of information was left out of the reports. Secondly, I feel like the reports tried to portray the staff and members of the film as people who were tricked into being in the movie. The sites tried to portray the director as the sole creator of the video, in essence putting all of the blame on him. The sites seemed like they were trying to save America by making it seem like America was not involved in the film, and that only the director had the beliefs expressed in the film. If I had only visited one site, I would not have the understanding of the situation that I know now, because every site has slightly different information.
ReplyDeleteThese articles seemed pretty unbiased. Although, in one article there is a quote by Hilary Clinton that came across as slightly biased when she said "We do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be". She sounded as though she did not support the things the video said but she did not want to sound like she did not aprrove of an American speaking his mind. These websites told different stories. CNN focused on the producer of the film. Fox focused on the attacks and responses to them. NPR focused on the US responses to the film and attacks. Having several websites helped to fill in the holes that the other websites had.
ReplyDeleteCNN tried to make the creater of the movie look like a fugitive with a criminal history. BBC focuses on all of the attacks by the terrorists and their effects on the victims. NPR tried to make it seem as though the U.S. and the Isamic community were making bad choices. Fox talked about how bad the attacks were which made it seem like all of Islam was full of violent people. All of the news stories except for NPR seemed biased. The biased news stories chose not to include certain information.
ReplyDelete