This is from CNN
Bush did get support from some Republicans.
"The president consulted with the best military minds ... and came up with a new strategy, and I think it deserves a chance," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
"This is our last chance. The consequences of failure are catastrophic. I believe we ought to give this general a chance to try to succeed with this plan," Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said of Gen. David Petraeus, who will be the new U.S. commander in Iraq.
Cornyn pushed Democrats to do more than criticize.
"I think the responsibility of the new majority in the Congress is to come up with an alternative," he said. "If they don't like this one, what do they like? What is their plan for success?"
This is ABC
While the president continues to ignore the will of the country, Congress will not ignore this president's failed policy," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said in a joint statement following Bush's address.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a former Navy secretary and respected voice on military matters, offered a more understated but equally divergent message from the president's. "I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues in the coming days to offer the president our best thinking on a new military strategy, and on how the Iraqis must deal with their own sectarian violence," he said.
The war, though, was the only issue Democrats were willing to leave in Bush's hands.
On the home front, Democrats want to be the ones who set the course toward goals such as affordable health care, energy independence and correcting climate change, even though the president embraced them Tuesday night with proposed cures of his own.
I think CNN is biased because they support the republicans. The quote when it says that they want the democrats to do more than criticize i think is a bias.
The ABC i think is liberal. The whole article only mentions about the democrats and what they think. No mention of republicans. Also they say that democrats care about the country and make it sound like republicans do.
I think this is right but can you tell me what more to look at instead of me just saying that "this is liberal and they're conservative" because i have to write an 800 word essay and i don't want to describe only one type of bias.
I am absolutely not certain you make a judgement on ONE news clipping. Secondly, I thought in the tone of George Washington, not getting involved in Foreign Wars was the conservative position. Sending troops to Haiti was not in the conservative tradition. My point here, you need to define the difference in supporting GWB's military escapades as pro war, or antiwar, it is hard for me to swallow it is a "conservative" or "liberal" issue.
The CNN article quoted McCain and Cornyn, two well known War Hawks. The article certainly did not advocate their being truthtellers, so I don't see bias. A more indepth article would have presented more balance, but I don't see bias just here. One needs maybe ten CNN articles to make that judgement. I am not certain many thinking folks take McCain or certainly Cornyn seriously.
On the ABC article, they quoted Pelosi's statement, and it was certainly biased (ignoring the will of the country). Warners statement shows bias also, as if he alone can represent the "best military thinking"...Geez, I can do better than that. On the all, some bias presented, and it did not support expanding the war. But liberal? Liberal is another cat in the bag.
I would suggest you get a couple more of CNN and ABC news briefs and see if there is a pattern.
Good work.
When analyzing bias in media, it's important to consider multiple factors beyond just one news clipping. Here are some additional aspects to look at in order to provide a comprehensive analysis:
1. Overall Coverage: Examine the broader coverage from both CNN and ABC to see if there is a consistent pattern of bias. Look at multiple articles or segments to evaluate whether there is a consistent slant towards a particular political ideology.
2. Language and Tone: Pay attention to the language used in the articles. Look for any loaded or emotive words that may convey a particular bias. Consider whether the tone is neutral or if it leans towards favoring a specific perspective.
3. Choice of Sources: Take note of the sources quoted in the articles. Are they predominantly from one political party or ideological camp? Look for a balance of perspectives so that multiple viewpoints are presented.
4. Framing of Arguments: Evaluate how the arguments are framed in each article. Consider whether there is an attempt to portray one side positively and the other negatively. Look for any logical fallacies or misrepresentations in the argumentation.
5. Omission of Information: Consider what information is included and what is omitted. Look for any gaps or selective reporting that could contribute to bias. Pay attention to whether the articles provide a comprehensive view of the issue being discussed.
6. Fact-Checking: Fact-check the information presented in the articles. Look for any inaccuracies or misleading statements. Biased media outlets may often present information in a way that supports their preferred narrative rather than presenting a balanced view of the facts.
By thoroughly examining multiple sources, evaluating language and tone, considering source selection and framing, checking for omissions, and fact-checking, you will be able to provide a more comprehensive analysis of bias in media. This will allow you to craft a more balanced and informative essay.