Pete Bootyjudge and Ilhan Omar
4/22/19
Pete Buttigieg is currently having an explosion of popularity in mainstream media. From being a "nobody" candidate just two weeks ago, he is now headlining dozens of articles from CNN, MSNBC, and other large media establishments. Not only is he getting plenty of exposure, but every article I have seen has been positive and practically fawning over him. In this CNN article, titled "Pete Buttigieg is the hottest candidate in the race right now" by Chris Cillizza, there are numerous examples of how he uses language to influence our perspective of Pete.
First of all, I disagree with the placement of CNN on the chart of media bias. There is bias beyond just right and left because CNN is an example of heavily pro-establishment bias. This means that they only show positive support upon candidates that will maintain the status quo, who mostly have no policy substance. For example, they write almost no negative articles about Kamala, Pete, or Beto, yet spread countless smears and hit jobs against people like Bernie Sanders. They are run by elites who don't want real change.
As a general statement about the article, there is no real substance. The only points raised are using abstract things about him to convince the audience that Pete is good. The first example is in the title: the word "hottest" creates an air of excitement and buzz around him. When saying why he is an impressive candidate, Cillizza states how, "a story of him speaking Norwegian went viral." Cillizza is trying to use platitudes and things people think of as a good trait to prove how Pete is a good candidate, when language is not a measurement of whether he is qualified. He also states how, "People l-o-v-e a good underdog story." He uses "l-o-v-e" to push meaning onto the audience without allowing them to create it themselves. Of course, it depends on the underdog, but this quote shows how Cillizza is trying to impose his view upon Pete onto the audience before they even learn about him.
The second article is from Fox News, titled "Ilhan Omar is an anti-Semite who brands criticism of her as anti-Muslim bigotry – but she’s the real bigot." The first word they use to describe Ilhan is "anti-semite", which creates assumptions that she hates Jews based off of the title. Throughout the rest of the article, they state how she hates Israelis and the state, but never mentioned how the only things she said were critiquing Israel's policy regarding to Palestine. Not agreeing with policy is not the same as antisemism. The article uses words such as "unquestionably," "deserved," and "justified" to make the audience believe she is undeniably a bigot. This entire article is a smear of Ilhan providing no context or quoting of what she said to become a raging anti-semite.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/pete-buttigieg-2020-campaign/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ilhan-omar-is-an-anti-semite-who-brands-criticism-of-her-as-anti-muslim-bigotry-but-shes-the-real-bigot
Pete Buttigieg is currently having an explosion of popularity in mainstream media. From being a "nobody" candidate just two weeks ago, he is now headlining dozens of articles from CNN, MSNBC, and other large media establishments. Not only is he getting plenty of exposure, but every article I have seen has been positive and practically fawning over him. In this CNN article, titled "Pete Buttigieg is the hottest candidate in the race right now" by Chris Cillizza, there are numerous examples of how he uses language to influence our perspective of Pete.
First of all, I disagree with the placement of CNN on the chart of media bias. There is bias beyond just right and left because CNN is an example of heavily pro-establishment bias. This means that they only show positive support upon candidates that will maintain the status quo, who mostly have no policy substance. For example, they write almost no negative articles about Kamala, Pete, or Beto, yet spread countless smears and hit jobs against people like Bernie Sanders. They are run by elites who don't want real change.
As a general statement about the article, there is no real substance. The only points raised are using abstract things about him to convince the audience that Pete is good. The first example is in the title: the word "hottest" creates an air of excitement and buzz around him. When saying why he is an impressive candidate, Cillizza states how, "a story of him speaking Norwegian went viral." Cillizza is trying to use platitudes and things people think of as a good trait to prove how Pete is a good candidate, when language is not a measurement of whether he is qualified. He also states how, "People l-o-v-e a good underdog story." He uses "l-o-v-e" to push meaning onto the audience without allowing them to create it themselves. Of course, it depends on the underdog, but this quote shows how Cillizza is trying to impose his view upon Pete onto the audience before they even learn about him.
The second article is from Fox News, titled "Ilhan Omar is an anti-Semite who brands criticism of her as anti-Muslim bigotry – but she’s the real bigot." The first word they use to describe Ilhan is "anti-semite", which creates assumptions that she hates Jews based off of the title. Throughout the rest of the article, they state how she hates Israelis and the state, but never mentioned how the only things she said were critiquing Israel's policy regarding to Palestine. Not agreeing with policy is not the same as antisemism. The article uses words such as "unquestionably," "deserved," and "justified" to make the audience believe she is undeniably a bigot. This entire article is a smear of Ilhan providing no context or quoting of what she said to become a raging anti-semite.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/pete-buttigieg-2020-campaign/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ilhan-omar-is-an-anti-semite-who-brands-criticism-of-her-as-anti-muslim-bigotry-but-shes-the-real-bigot
Comments
Post a Comment