Now this is why this New York Post article frustrates me. The New York Post is known for being sensationalist and overly biased, and this post is no different. The author, Michael Goodwin, speaks about how Obama has allegedly "become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government." He criticizes Obama and what he has done in office, which yes, I think is completely okay to do; everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, in my opinion, the way in which he criticizes is completely disrespectful. At one point Goodwin says, "Even as desperate Pander-crats, including the president, continue to baby-talk the Wall Street hooligans, some of whom have violently attacked police, Mayor Bloomberg gets the point and tone just right."
I just found that throughout this post, Goodwin was incredibly biased and disrespectful, and because of this I cannot consider him to be a credible source of information. Although I will admit to leaning more towards the conservative side of the political spectrum, I do consider myself to be much more moderate in general and I appreciate hearing all facts and points of view before taking a stand on an issue. However, reading sensationalist and biased stories such as Goodwin's upset me because I would rather learn the facts about a situation or issue, not about the author's clear disdain for it. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that this can be a very difficult task to undergo when reading about politics, because as fact-based and bias-free I would like things to be, that is just not in the nature of politics.
I could not agree more with your outlook on political sensationalists. This type of biased writing is especially frustrating because they pander to the specific group of people who already hold that opinion, rather than use valid information or statistics in order to prove a logical point. Goodwin, as well as many other political authors, are operating under an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the person not the situation, which is a huge flaw in his argument. He characterizes Obama negatively as a person, even making comparisons to Richard Nixon, but doesn't address any real policy or relevant issues. Biased resources like this are polarizing to a large population of potential readers and speak to the lack of publishing standards that the internet allows.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what you said about politics being hard to discuss without any sort of bias; while I know this is the case, it is still so frustrating to constantly have such biased articles as the one that you referenced. The author clearly does not care about presenting facts and instead only wants to make his harsh opinion known to, as Carey points out, a group of people who already agree with him. Catering political "news" stories to a specific group of people becomes dangerous, because as we discussed in class, the people who read this article will only become stronger in their opinions; they believe something, read articles like this that justify their opinions, and the vicious cycle continues, making us a world of extremists. This incredible bias leads to extreme group polarization. Goodwin could have instead presented more facts and more information about both sides of the story, or at least provided links leading to such information. Though bias is inevitable, if we are not exposed to a spectrum of viewpoints, articles such as this one only fuel our anger and opinions.
ReplyDelete