Kiener, R. (2013, May 3). Media bias. CQ Researcher, 23, 401-424.

Retrieved from
http://library.cqpress.com/
The author is an award-winning writer whose work has appeared in The London Sunday Times,
The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, Readers Digest, Time Life Books and
other publications. The publication cites over 80 resources includes those from the Pew Research
Center. The source presents the data currently available on media bias, discussing the effects it
has on the American public, and collecting opinions as to what should be done about it. The
report features graphs on bias based on data collected from Gallup and the Pew Research Center.
The report also features accounts from parties who do and do not believe in the current state of
media bias. The audience seems to be those who are currently uninformed about the state of
mass media and how outlets can misrepresent information to benefit themselves. I personally
find the report, found through a search for sensationalism on CQ Researcher, to be fair and just,
representing both sides fairly while showing clearly the conclusions they found.

Herrman, J. (2016). Self-correcting beyond a web era marked by sensationalism.

The source discusses the implications of sensationalism in the digital age, as a jury awarded Hulk
Hogan damages from Gawker for its publication of a sex tape, while site and others were already
self-correcting in the direction of privacy. The source directs the reader to other sources,
providing other similar as well as contrary opinions on the issue. The bias seems to be towards
the side of the law, as Gawker is underrepresented. The intended audience is those interested in
how privacy will affect media sensationalism I the digital age. I believe the source, found
through the National Newspapers Core, is slightly informal for the subject matter, but adequately
discusses the implications of sensationalism in a relatively fair matter.