Navigating Bias

Part 1: Visit the news websites listed below and choose a headline from each one. Then, explain what bias is
inherent in each headline and what specific words or connotations show that. Finally, answer the questions below.

News Website Headline Bias Analysis

CNN Angela Merkel must beat the This is biased because it is not
www.cnn.com pandemic to save her legacy. Time saying what happened to Angela
is running out Merkel or why time is running out,
and the whole thing is formed like
an opinion because someone else
might not say the same thing about
her legacy not being able to survive
if she doesn’t beat the pandemic.
This headline doesn’t state any
facts and is purely an opinion.

Fox News Vulnerable Democrats under pressure The headline describes democrats
www.foxnews.com to give back AOC campaign cash as “vulnerable,” which is an opinion
because even if there are facts that
point to democrats being
something, the interpretation and
conclusion that democrats are
vulnerable is an opinion. Also, the
fact that the democrats are “under
pressure” is based on interpretation
and someone else may disagree
that they are under pressure based
on the factual things happening to
the democrats.
AP News
www.apnews.com
How are these headlines different
and what do they have in common?
Why do news organizations have
different stories if the same things
are happening?
Rock star Van Zandt helping This headline can be seen as biased
Connecticut students re-engage because it claims that Rock star
Van Zandt is helping students
re-engage in (most likely) school.
The reason that this is biased is
that someone could interpret what
Van Zandt is doing to “help,” as
something that actually does more
harm. This headline is interpreting
what the rock star is doing, not
simply stating what he is doing.
These headlines are different in the way that they all have different levels
of bias and interpretation. The CNN title, which completely different from
most of the factual sounding headlines on their website, is a straight
opinion and includes no facts at all. The Fox News headline doesn’t
include any straight-put facts, but it does describe something about the
topic of how people want the democrats to give back campaign cash. And
the AP news headline includes the idea that Van Zandt is doing
something to students in Connecticut, however, it goes ahead and
characterizes the facts as “helping,” and doesn’t say anything about the
actions he is actually doing. While they share different levels of bias, they
all have in common that they include some sort of pre-interpreted
version of the facts and do not include any factual statements that the
audience can interpret on their own.
News organizations have different stories on the same thing because
while the news is there to spread information, many of them are still
businesses that need to gain profit. To do this, it helps to have a set
 audience and algorithm. When a news source can narrow down their
audience, and therefore narrow their advertisements and other profitable
things, they can make more profit. This is important because making a
story fit a certain type of narrative helps obtain the curated audience that
they need to spread their organization/business. The same event will be
told in different stories because everyone reporting on it has different
goals, whether it is to cater to people seeking news to fit their own belief
or someone looking for factual statements with no interpretation,

Part 2: Go to allsides.com and choose a topic addressed on varying news networks. Read the articles and examine
them for biased language, similarities, and differences.

Questions Answers
List the three headlines: 1. Half of U.S. adults have received at least one Covid shot in milestone for vaccination
campaign
2. Half of adult population in US has received at least one vaccine dose
3. Half of U.S. adults have received at least one COVID vaccination, CDC says

What do they all All three articles include the facts surrounding that 50% of adults have been
include? vaccinated with one dose. Other facts like how many people have died from COVID,
and how many are fully vaccinated were also included in all of the articles. They
also all include info about the J&J vaccine being put on hold and provide further
information surrounding that including that there are still enough vaccines of the
other two brands. Doctor Fauci’s words about the J&J vaccine are also included in all
of the articles.

How are they different? The differences in the article include the order that the information was presented
Be specific and cite and the way it was given. Two articles start with giving the straight facts about who
evidence. has been vaccinated and then go on later to give updates about the J&J vaccine and
any concerns that need to be addressed. The Washington Examiner article, however,
begins with 3 very brief paragraphs about the statistics, and then goes straight on to
say that the J&J vaccine has been halted after, “at least eight people were diagnosed
with ‘a rare and severe type of blood clot.’” This article is the only one to describe the
blood clots as “severe,” and tends to focus more of the urgency of the article on
them.
Another difference is that the article by CNN includes a video that has Doctor Fauci
talking about information and answering questions, while the CNBC article includes
a newsroom video where the reporters are reading facts. The Washington Examiner
article only has a video on the top of the page that changes the stories it presents
when you refresh the page, and is not related to the topic of the article.
The article’s headlines are also slightly different. They all include the fact that half
of the adult population in the US has gotten at least one dose of the COVID vaccine,
however, the titles vary in the case that one title doesn’t even specify that the
vaccine they are talking about is the COVID vaccine. Sure, it could be safe to assume
that everyone knows what you are talking about, but it is much more professional to
be specific in the things you are saying.