For starters they are very clear on their political stances right off the bat with their biased laden headlines. For example, Michelle Malkin titled her feature story headline concerning the day’s importance, “100 Days of the Poser Presidency.” Whereas the more left-friendly blog site Politico titled their headline, “Questions for Obama on his 100th day” with a picture looking up at President Obama with a god-like glow (pictured below).
Additionally to two went on completely different paths in addressing the day’s importance for the presidency and our country. Politico based its story off questions the President will be asked concerning our future, while repetitively documenting his high approval ratings as well. There were no links within this feature article and it basically summed up what the Presidents plans for the future were/are and what he is doing to stay in touch with the American people; i.e. Reading 10 letters a day from citizens, sent to the White House. Whereas Malkin goes on a rambling rant of what the President hasn’t done thus far. She uses several hyperlinks that demonstrate the original story/event that she is criticizing Obama on. Language like, “Let’s have some of that vaunted transparency Barack Obama is always talking about” clearly shows her stance too.
It seems that blogging can provide all sides to a topic and suffice links to even further demonstrate a point or idea, but is this really fair media, even though it’s coming from an A-list blog site. I understand the idea of “fair inequality” and that these are merit-based, cheap, and endless sources that feed off what the public asks for and that’s how they survive and essentially thrive, but isn’t that the same thing as jumping off a bridge because someone told you to or being the class clown just to get some attention? Or is this type of media just going to plunder into a race for 15 minutes of fame?
No comments:
Post a Comment