In recent years, the topic regarding biases and inflammatory content represented in the majority of our sources of news have entered common knowledge dramatically. Major social and political movements such as Black Lives Matter, March for Our Lives, and the Tea Party Movement also contribute to the major division that currently splits Americans into two factions. The March for Our Lives movement in particular has gained both notoriety and coverage by a plurality of news outlets in regards to its message of preventing gun violence in both schools and everyday lives. The message posited by the movement directly involves the clash of both traditional conservative and liberal values on gun control, which then is predominantly covered by American
…show more content…
While the outlet’s rhetoric and language is significantly tamer than other conservative media sources such as Fox News, it predominantly expresses conservative leanings, especially those regarding to the March for Our Lives movement. The article, “The ‘March for Our Lives’ Moral Panic” written by the editors of The National Review, openly express their disdain for the movement. The editors explicitly refer to other arguments claiming that gun violence is reportedly decreasing, claiming, “Indeed, while one would not have known from the hyperbole, gun violence is not on the increase. Rather, it has been dramatically reduced over the last 30 years (National Review).” The diction used throughout the article and the excerpt point to significant bias regarding gun control and March for Our Lives; considering how the title is purposely inflammatory and contains a hasty generalization by claiming that gun violence is on the decrease while refusing to mention any studies that support the argument and instantly labeling March for Our Lives as a “Moral Panic” which suggests a disregard for the main purpose of the movement. Through the use of a buzzword and a bandwagon argument despite facts regarding the status of gun safety since 1960, the article is only credible through a …show more content…
USA Today, while not a major liberal news outlet compared to sites such as CNN, still contain biases similar to those expressed by the National Review, but instead directly label both conservatives and liberals into specific “bubbles” as described by the article. USA Today generally appeals to people on the left of the political spectrum and to young Americans considering the majority of the articles on the site cover political issues with the Trump Administration. However, as the majority of the website’s topics criticize his administration, the site also supports the March for Our Lives movement due to the use of affirmative language that praises the movement on articles as well as a massive catalogue of articles on the topic located on the website. Words used throughout the article such as, “praised”, and “optimistic” suggest that the article lauds the movement instead of informing the details of the event. It can be inferred that USA Today’s article can be an opinion piece despite the lack of a tagline by the article’s heading or citation as well as the inclusion of affirmatory language. Despite the article’s diction, there are numerous references to the political spectrum that help further the divide between the left and the right. The main focus of the article discusses “bubbles” formed because of the political differences between liberals and
While the outlet’s rhetoric and language is significantly tamer than other conservative media sources such as Fox News, it predominantly expresses conservative leanings, especially those regarding to the March for Our Lives movement. The article, “The ‘March for Our Lives’ Moral Panic” written by the editors of The National Review, openly express their disdain for the movement. The editors explicitly refer to other arguments claiming that gun violence is reportedly decreasing, claiming, “Indeed, while one would not have known from the hyperbole, gun violence is not on the increase. Rather, it has been dramatically reduced over the last 30 years (National Review).” The diction used throughout the article and the excerpt point to significant bias regarding gun control and March for Our Lives; considering how the title is purposely inflammatory and contains a hasty generalization by claiming that gun violence is on the decrease while refusing to mention any studies that support the argument and instantly labeling March for Our Lives as a “Moral Panic” which suggests a disregard for the main purpose of the movement. Through the use of a buzzword and a bandwagon argument despite facts regarding the status of gun safety since 1960, the article is only credible through a …show more content…
USA Today, while not a major liberal news outlet compared to sites such as CNN, still contain biases similar to those expressed by the National Review, but instead directly label both conservatives and liberals into specific “bubbles” as described by the article. USA Today generally appeals to people on the left of the political spectrum and to young Americans considering the majority of the articles on the site cover political issues with the Trump Administration. However, as the majority of the website’s topics criticize his administration, the site also supports the March for Our Lives movement due to the use of affirmative language that praises the movement on articles as well as a massive catalogue of articles on the topic located on the website. Words used throughout the article such as, “praised”, and “optimistic” suggest that the article lauds the movement instead of informing the details of the event. It can be inferred that USA Today’s article can be an opinion piece despite the lack of a tagline by the article’s heading or citation as well as the inclusion of affirmatory language. Despite the article’s diction, there are numerous references to the political spectrum that help further the divide between the left and the right. The main focus of the article discusses “bubbles” formed because of the political differences between liberals and