CNN, Fox News, and the Texas Church Shooting
*Picture of authorities handling the aftermath is taken from AP
Yesterday morning, Patrick Kelley shot up a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He killed 26 people, including his grandmother-in-law. Authorities found him dead however, it is uncertain how exactly he died. It was either from a self-inflicted gunshot wound or from the man who followed him from near the site of the shooting and shot him. This was the worst mass shooting to ever happen in Texas.
To compare CNN and Fox News, I dissected articles that they wrote today about the shooting. Here is some background information from the Pew Research Center's chart for Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience: 1) CNN’s audience is more consistently liberal than conservative. 2) Fox New’s audience is more consistently conservative than liberal. I chose an article about the shooting to analyze from each news source:
Yesterday morning, Patrick Kelley shot up a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He killed 26 people, including his grandmother-in-law. Authorities found him dead however, it is uncertain how exactly he died. It was either from a self-inflicted gunshot wound or from the man who followed him from near the site of the shooting and shot him. This was the worst mass shooting to ever happen in Texas.
To compare CNN and Fox News, I dissected articles that they wrote today about the shooting. Here is some background information from the Pew Research Center's chart for Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience: 1) CNN’s audience is more consistently liberal than conservative. 2) Fox New’s audience is more consistently conservative than liberal. I chose an article about the shooting to analyze from each news source:
CNN's "Texas gunman killed his grandmother-in-law and 25 others at church" Article
This article was a CNN breaking news update about the Texas church shooting. The article covers the details of the shooting and its latest developments, information about the victims, background information about the shooter, and the aftermath the community faces after the shooting.
This article was made to provide all available information about the Texas church shooting making it completely relevant to my topic: the Texas church shooting. I’d imagine their information is credible but, there is a limitation: they don’t name a specific source for their information and usually report it as coming from “investigators” or “authorities”.
The article does not have a strong point of view however, it seems to have an anti-Trump bias. In a section of the article about how our President responded to the shooting, they write “Donald Trump expressed condolences for the victims during a Monday news conference and said he believes the shooting was caused by a "mental health problem," not an issue with US gun laws.” This quote suggests that the authors believe that the attack could have been prevented had there been superior gun laws and that they disagree with Trump’s assessment. Perhaps the authors are of this opinion because of all of the liberal media encouraging more gun laws. Although I know relatively little about gun control, in my opinion, having more gun laws would not have helped in this situation because the shooter illegally obtained his firearm.
While most of the article is about sharing the details of the story, they do devote much of the article to the victims and their family. This makes the authors appear very sympathetic towards the victims. To drive this home, they use the rhetorical device pathos, by showing pictures of those who were killed (before the attack), to make their audience feel sympathy for the victims.
This article is not very argumentative but rather, explanatory and informative. The facts provided seem to come from credible sources (local authorities handling the situation). I believe that the facts presented are accurate and that there is little to no incentive to provide misleading information.
This article was a CNN breaking news update about the Texas church shooting. The article covers the details of the shooting and its latest developments, information about the victims, background information about the shooter, and the aftermath the community faces after the shooting.
This article was made to provide all available information about the Texas church shooting making it completely relevant to my topic: the Texas church shooting. I’d imagine their information is credible but, there is a limitation: they don’t name a specific source for their information and usually report it as coming from “investigators” or “authorities”.
The article does not have a strong point of view however, it seems to have an anti-Trump bias. In a section of the article about how our President responded to the shooting, they write “Donald Trump expressed condolences for the victims during a Monday news conference and said he believes the shooting was caused by a "mental health problem," not an issue with US gun laws.” This quote suggests that the authors believe that the attack could have been prevented had there been superior gun laws and that they disagree with Trump’s assessment. Perhaps the authors are of this opinion because of all of the liberal media encouraging more gun laws. Although I know relatively little about gun control, in my opinion, having more gun laws would not have helped in this situation because the shooter illegally obtained his firearm.
While most of the article is about sharing the details of the story, they do devote much of the article to the victims and their family. This makes the authors appear very sympathetic towards the victims. To drive this home, they use the rhetorical device pathos, by showing pictures of those who were killed (before the attack), to make their audience feel sympathy for the victims.
This article is not very argumentative but rather, explanatory and informative. The facts provided seem to come from credible sources (local authorities handling the situation). I believe that the facts presented are accurate and that there is little to no incentive to provide misleading information.
Fox News's "Texas church shooter Devin Patrick Kelley served in Air Force, was court-martialed for assaulting wife, child" Article
This article is about the man, Patrick Kelley, who shot a church in Texas. The article provides multiple details about the man’s life and background. Several pieces of evidence make it clear that he was mentally ill and even violent. The article is ultimately about trying to determine the motive behind the shooting, which is unclear.
This article is very relevant to my topic, the Texas church shooting, because it is about both the shooter and the motives behind the shooting. Evidence is cited as coming from several sources including people who knew the shooter, authorities, and other news media sources such as the New York Times. The evidence seem to be accurate on the whole.
While most of the article is fact after fact, the selection of evidence indicates that they are trying to use it determine why the shooting happened. The point of view of the article is that we need to figure out why shootings like this one occur. The severity of the shooting is communicated with the rhetorical device, pathos, in the form of showing several images of authorities managing the aftermath of the situation. I'd bet that this article was written in a specific social context: the authors probably intended to show how grave this mass shooting is to bring to attention how gun violence in America is becoming far worse.
This article was not very argumentative, it did not even include their own opinion of why the shooting happened. It mostly provided information about the shooter from a variety of sources. I find the information compelling however, because it was not used to support an argument, there is no argument for me to critique.
This article is about the man, Patrick Kelley, who shot a church in Texas. The article provides multiple details about the man’s life and background. Several pieces of evidence make it clear that he was mentally ill and even violent. The article is ultimately about trying to determine the motive behind the shooting, which is unclear.
This article is very relevant to my topic, the Texas church shooting, because it is about both the shooter and the motives behind the shooting. Evidence is cited as coming from several sources including people who knew the shooter, authorities, and other news media sources such as the New York Times. The evidence seem to be accurate on the whole.
While most of the article is fact after fact, the selection of evidence indicates that they are trying to use it determine why the shooting happened. The point of view of the article is that we need to figure out why shootings like this one occur. The severity of the shooting is communicated with the rhetorical device, pathos, in the form of showing several images of authorities managing the aftermath of the situation. I'd bet that this article was written in a specific social context: the authors probably intended to show how grave this mass shooting is to bring to attention how gun violence in America is becoming far worse.
This article was not very argumentative, it did not even include their own opinion of why the shooting happened. It mostly provided information about the shooter from a variety of sources. I find the information compelling however, because it was not used to support an argument, there is no argument for me to critique.
How news media influences political beliefs
It is somewhat difficult to explain, from these two articles alone, how news media influences a person's political opinions. I think the only thing that I got from this was from the CNN article. This article may have turned opinions about gun control laws and the president because it criticized Trump, and attributed the problem to allegedly failing gun control laws.
In my own experience, news media is the most powerful influence of political beliefs. News media reports facts, some of which could be false or misleadingly presented, upon which we form our opinions. Often times, these facts are used to support an argument, that if believed by the audience, could sway there political opinion about an issue. News media is incredibly powerful because it controls what we know and what we don't know (in terms of facts and common opinions on an issue).
It is somewhat difficult to explain, from these two articles alone, how news media influences a person's political opinions. I think the only thing that I got from this was from the CNN article. This article may have turned opinions about gun control laws and the president because it criticized Trump, and attributed the problem to allegedly failing gun control laws.
In my own experience, news media is the most powerful influence of political beliefs. News media reports facts, some of which could be false or misleadingly presented, upon which we form our opinions. Often times, these facts are used to support an argument, that if believed by the audience, could sway there political opinion about an issue. News media is incredibly powerful because it controls what we know and what we don't know (in terms of facts and common opinions on an issue).
You wrote a very informative blog post that did a good job summarizing both articles. I also agree with your assessment on how news media influences the public. The media is basically the gateway to information for most people.
ReplyDeletewow this is some good comparisons and multimedia in your blog keep up the good work we all learn a lot
ReplyDeletegreat job gabe keep up the good good. Like the analysis and the multimedia.
ReplyDelete