To understand confirmation bias in the media I started with two stories by Salon.
While the first piece starts out wonky, seemingly very issues-oriented, it gets
down to confirming a bias Salon readers may have, especially as we get closer
to summer (the conventions) and fall (the general election).
One paragraph starts, “Unfortunately, neither Hillary
Clinton nor Donald Trump — the two leading presidential candidates right now —
inspire much confidence that climate change will be a priority for their
administrations.”
The very next paragraph starts, “While a Clinton
presidency could likely have undesirable consequences for the environment, a
Trump presidency would almost certainly be catastrophic.”
Sen. Sanders is briefly mentioned, but the idea is
that now is a good time to prepare to vote for Secy. Clinton, because the
alternative could be the ‘catastrophic’ presidency of Donald Trump.
The second piece from Salon
talks about Democratic Party unity and the current debates the party are
having. The piece seems very balanced, but leaves those desiring to confirm
their Clinton bias with something to go off of, “Hillary Clinton’s backers and
supporters, I suspect, will ultimately get some version of the party unity
they’re clamoring for, and most likely the president they want too.”
In contrast to Salon, I headed over to Breitbart to
see what their coverage looked like.
Interestingly enough Breitbart takes more of a hard
news approach. In their first
article there is reporting of some now former Colorado Republicans who have
left the party because of what happened at state conventions over the weekend.
This confirms a bias that Republicans may have against Donald Trump and that
Trump supporters have of Republicans.
The second
piece follows this same theme. It is hard news and shows similar conflicts.
The Colorado GOP tweeted #NeverTrump, but then later deleted it and now claim
to be investigating into the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment