Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
As a public service, I will present the headline stories from both Foxnews and CNN at random moments. Random in that I will decide to do at a random moment without checking either headline first.
It will be the top story on the page when I click on it. I'll link the story page rather than the main page because that link will be just cnn.com or foxnews.com. I'll include a screen shot of the headline itself.
I will then analyse the two headlines according to these criteria:
1) Is the headline factual or opinion?
2) Either way, does the story support the headline?
3) Does the decision to run that particular headline seem to reflect a bias?
The comparison will be over and under rather than side-by-side. I'll put the CNN headline first this time, just to be alphabetical, and then I'll try to alternate. If I can't remember what I did the last post, I'll revert to CNN first.
10/29/22
2:58 PM CDT
www.foxnews.com
1) This headline states a purported fact, so it is factual in that sense. Whether it is true or not fall under question 2).
2) This is very lightly supported by the word of one young woman. I know that we are told to "believe the women," but this belated accusation would not stand up in a court of law. In the court of public opinion, it is an attack on the character of a guy whose character is already being attaacked by both sides of the political spectrum.
3. Having a story with such scant support as the headline clearly shows bias.
edition.cnn.com
1) The headline is factual, making a factual claim about the number of people killed in a crowded party incident.
2) The story supports the headline, citing the Chief of the Fire Department for the numbers.
3) The only bias here would be the "it bleeds, it leads" bias that most news organizations share.
There it is: For the first trial, CNN came out looking much more factual and less biased.
We'll see how it goes from here.
It will be the top story on the page when I click on it. I'll link the story page rather than the main page because that link will be just cnn.com or foxnews.com. I'll include a screen shot of the headline itself.
I will then analyse the two headlines according to these criteria:
1) Is the headline factual or opinion?
2) Either way, does the story support the headline?
3) Does the decision to run that particular headline seem to reflect a bias?
The comparison will be over and under rather than side-by-side. I'll put the CNN headline first this time, just to be alphabetical, and then I'll try to alternate. If I can't remember what I did the last post, I'll revert to CNN first.
10/29/22
2:58 PM CDT
Pelosi attack: woman claiming to be suspect David DePape's stepdaughter says he was abusive
A woman claiming to be the stepdaughter of suspected Paul Pelosi attacker David DePape says he was abusive toward her and her siblings, but he tried to be 'a good person.'
www.foxnews.com
1) This headline states a purported fact, so it is factual in that sense. Whether it is true or not fall under question 2).
2) This is very lightly supported by the word of one young woman. I know that we are told to "believe the women," but this belated accusation would not stand up in a court of law. In the court of public opinion, it is an attack on the character of a guy whose character is already being attaacked by both sides of the political spectrum.
3. Having a story with such scant support as the headline clearly shows bias.
October 29 Seoul Halloween news
At least 151 people, including 19 foreign nationals, are now reported to have been killed during an incident at Halloween festivities in Seoul, according to fire authorities.
1) The headline is factual, making a factual claim about the number of people killed in a crowded party incident.
2) The story supports the headline, citing the Chief of the Fire Department for the numbers.
3) The only bias here would be the "it bleeds, it leads" bias that most news organizations share.
There it is: For the first trial, CNN came out looking much more factual and less biased.
We'll see how it goes from here.
