White Paper- CompIIstudent

Current Hypothesis-

Regaining the publics trust in the media would help reheal the country.

Source 1-

Politically motivated Selective Exposure and Percieved Media Bias

They way people consume media now, they’re basically expecting it to be biased one way or another. This asks the question, how would be benefit from the media in genreal if there was a positive perception surrounding it? A surevey was conducted in Wisconsin where people submitted their own accounts of recieving biased media. They discussed how they felt politically driven stories since 2011 have had an affect on how they view media.

The article says that the general percepion of the media is that it is biased, but self selected media isn’t. This speaks to why Americans have tried to branch out and find other, non- mainstream, news sources.

The Wisconsin study also found that there were opposite patterns of media bias and selective media. This shows that the trust in the media had been lacking and only grew more divided since that point.

Matthew Barnidge, A. C. (2017, June 14). Politically Motivated Selective Exposure and Perceived Media Bias – Matthew Barnidge, Albert C. Gunther, Jinha Kim, Yangsun Hong, Mallory Perryman, Swee Kiat Tay, Sandra Knisely, 2020. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093650217713066#articleCitationDownloadContainer

Source 2-

Comparative and Corrective Action: Percieved Media Bias and Political Action in 17 Countries

In this article, people in some cases have been known to act out in vvarious ways against the media, if they find that the media is biased against them. There was a Comparative National Election project which gathered data from 17 countries. The evidence showed a positive and trusting relaitionship between people and political action when it comes to media bias. This evidence does vary from country to country.

The results of this experiment can be used to show how effective freedome of the press has been in other countries, as well as trends in political action across the world.

Barnidge, M., Rojas, H., Beck, P. A., & Schmitt-Beck, R. (2019, November 11). Comparative Corrective Action: Perceived Media Bias and Political Action in 17 Countries. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/32/4/732/5620395?login=true

Source 3-

You Are Fake News: Political bias in Perceptions of Fake News

This article dives deep into the term “fake news” itself and describes how harmful the concept can be. The author discusses how much the term grew in regular dialogue since 2016, largely due to the Trump campaign. A national survey was conducted and the consensus seemed to be that most fake news was presented to the public by way of the biggest news corporations; Fox News and CNN. The study also showed that conservatives were the group who used the word more often. This was driectly lnked to a lower trust in media overall, as well as more support for Trump.

Sander van der Linden, C. P. (2020, February 27). You are fake news: Political bias in perceptions of fake news – Sander van der Linden, Costas Panagopoulos, Jon Roozenbeek, 2020. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0163443720906992

Source 4-

Changes in the Perception of Meida Bias

This article takes a close look at how people started to view bias in media differentely following the 2016 election. One conclusion of research in this area was that percieved media bias was something that caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election. The effects of media bias seemed to vary based on how much attention people payed to the campaigns. In the end, it appeared that strong Democrats and more independent Republicans.

Kirby Goidel, N. T. (n.d.). Changes in perceptions of media bias – Kirby Goidel, Nicholas T. Davis, Spencer Goidel, 2021. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168020987441

Source 5-

Infulence of News Media Bias on American Perspective of White Supremacy

This article takes a close look at the close relaitionship between how we view certain examples of white supremacy and neo- naziism because the media steers away from those subjects. They highlight the other side of that, how people practicing the religion of Islam were vastly targeted after 9/11, and the media covered that largely. The whole people was labled by a threat in the eyes of the media, and that was almost 20 years ago. Now when White Supremacy is still very much active, the media doesn’t put the heat on it like it should.

Humphrey. (2019, November 12). Influence of News Media Bias on American Perspective of White Supremacy. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern/theses/6t053j656

This entry was posted in compiistudent, White Paper. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to White Paper- CompIIstudent

  1. davidbdale says:

    FIRST of all, I’m very happy to see this post, Comp2. Collaborating with your primary reader (in this case, me) in a recursive process to respond to feedback from others is the core value of this course. I’m glad to be involved. Let’s get started.

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    IMPORTANT HOUSEKEEPING. Please correct ALL your posts for categories, Comp2. This post is in the 123 Uncheck This Box category, making it invisible to all meaningful searches. I found it only because I was scanning the Recent Posts area. Once it leaves the Recent spaces, any post not categorized gets lost.

    WE DON’T USE TAGS. Remove all tags from this post and place it into two categories: White Paper and Compiistudent.

    Like

  3. davidbdale says:

    Before I read any further, Comp2, my immediate impression is that you haven’t identified a counterintuitive angle to your hypothesis. BUT THERE IS AN OBVIOUS ONE.

    For most of the nation’s history, the free press has been treasured by Americans as an essential protection against the excesses of government and business. It’s been referred to forever as “The Fourth Estate,” which references is capacity to advocate for justice and fairness and to frame political issues even though it doesn’t govern, execute, or enforce laws. The Founding Fathers recognized the press as essential to our democracy.

    SOOOOO, it’s entirely counterintuitive to anyone who has lived in a society in which the press has always been the undeniably best source of TRUTH against the EXAGERRATIONS and OBFUSCATIONS of government leaders and corporate titans that SUDDENLY the press is seen as the exact opposite, a source of misinformation and disinformation. Whatever you think of our former president, he made it entirely clear from early in his campaign that the “press is the enemy of the people.” Had he succeeded in convincing a few more million of us to move to that side of the argument, we might have launched a long regime of government that declared itself to be the ONLY SOURCE of reliable information.

    I’m not suggesting you don’t know this. But I don’t see any reflection of it in your Hypothesis, which could use a bit of counterintuitivity.

    Like

  4. davidbdale says:

    I do love the topic, Comp2, and I’m happy to see you tackle an issue of such importance. I will mostly try to guide your research and respond to your stated needs, but I will also be a critic of your writing as we go, so prepare for some firm feedback.

    I don’t understand what claims you’re making in your first Purposeful Summary.

    1. I understand “people expect media to be biased,” but I don’t see what it has to do with “the way they consume media now.”
    2. A Rhetorical Question is not a claim, but I think that, hidden in your Question, is a claim that “WE would benefit from a positive perception of the media.” That must mean there’s a cost to society having a negative perception of the media. That’s probably your actual claim.
    3. The two sentences you devote to the Wisconsin survey don’t contain a claim at all. “People talked about how they felt” adds nothing to your summary.
    4. You cite a claim made by the article. It cites a claim made by survey participants. The claim: “The OTHER media is biased, but not the media I PAY ATTENTION TO.”
    5. You follow that up with the claim that Americans seek out “alternative” media for truth not found in the general media.
    6. You cite “opposite patterns of media bias and selective media.” I honestly have no clue what that means.

    I’m going to read the source material now.

    Like

  5. davidbdale says:

    What a great source you found. So much here to consider. There’s a wonderful example of “the bias of perceived bias” in the description of the media coverage of the Beirut bombing. Both Arabs and Israelis thought THE SAME objective report was biased “against their side.”

    There’s also evidence that strong partisans of all types (people who cling firmly to a PARTY or a particular side of the political spectrum) are most likely to consider the mainstream media to be biased against them, regardless of the coverage.

    This part is nice:

    People have a clear notion of “the mainstream media” as a group of major news organizations, and . . . in the United States . . . strong partisans, in particular, are more likely to rate the media as biased against them

    Several useful terms and phrases could be part of your summary and useful to your overall argument.
    1. Confirmatory Selective Exposure (the practice of choosing media that confirm our beliefs).
    2. Media cues (the tendency of media sources to include in their broadcasts negative cues about “the mainstream media” or even “the fake news organizations”)
    3. A political “out-group” (alternative media like to foster the identity of their consumers as “outside the mainstream,” which encourages “in-group” identification, and furthers a suspicion of the “mainstream” media)
    And so on.

    I get a much better idea what your own claims mean now that I’ve examined the source material, and that’s not surprising. Any summary lacks the detail of the original.

    I would recommend that you have someone read your summaries as you’re working on them, Comp2. If they understand what you mean, you’re most likely on solid ground.

    The other extremely valuable aspect of this particular source is its list of more than 60 references. You shouldn’t have trouble finding enough material for your 3000 words if your first sources lead so easily to more.

    Like

  6. davidbdale says:

    Back to your own Hypothesis.

    Given what you’re discovering about perceived bias, how in the world can THE MEDIA ever restore the nation’s trust in THE MEDIA? If what was true for the Arabs and the Israelis is true for Americans, both sides see bias even when there is none. So how can presenters of the news every gain the trust of consumers who are always BIASED TO FIND BIAS?

    That’s counterintuitive.

    Like

  7. davidbdale says:

    I’ve graded your post at Canvas, Comp2. The grade can be quickly improved by adding the required “Current State of my Research” section (and maybe tweaking your Hypothesis a bit). If the grade satisfies you, nothing further is required. If you wish to revise, you can do that right in this post (no need to create a Rewrite post) and Update it. Once you’ve revised it, you can request a regrade for one week by putting this revised post into the Regrade Please category.

    Either way, it’s polite AND good strategy to respond to your Professor when he leaves feedback. Any or all of the Replies above might warrant a: “Thanks, Prof,” or “I’m going to start revising right away,” or “What the hell was that!” in response. If you prefer to be ignored, you needn’t respond at all. 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s