To draw on Dr. Nassar's article, the author of each article clearly has a goal, similarly to the way photographers have a goal in taking pictures. They want to provoke some type of thought in its readers (or viewers of photography). While multiple meanings can be taken from a text depending on the background of a reader, a bias can often be pulled easily from a news article. While reading these articles, specifically the second one, I thought the comments were interesting and told me something different about the bias of the authors. Focusing on the second article for a moment, if you look at the comments, everyone is obviously talking about their take on the information in the article. Most of the comments were very defensive of Israel, which makes sense since the readers of JPost are probably interested in supporting Israel rather than being in conflict with it. The article seems fairly neutral (and a little in favor of) Kerry and the commenters are outraged that Kerry even wants to butt into Israeli affairs. I found that I had a somewhat different perspective on the article after reading it, as I originally saw the article as neutral. While I still find it to be definitely be fair, I can now see that the JPost Staff views Kerry in a positive way as opposed to the antagonists that the commenters see.
The articles I chose mostly focused on the politics of Jerusalem. The third article mentions people's reactions to the idea of a divided Jerusalem. I thought the term "Jewish extremists" was an interesting choice of words, as it suggested a bias from the author. Other than that, it just discusses a potential deal between Israelis and Palestinians. The comments also suggested something interesting, specifically the one that said that Jerusalem rightfully belongs to Israel and cites the Bible as her evidence. As a side note, I found it sad that someone would solely cite a religious text as opposed to view the conflict in a greater political and social picture.
Media sources have a huge impact on the way we perceive news. They are able to create what we believe to be true or untrue. It's always good to go back to Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" to see how the media is able to sway people as a whole on way or another and to create truth as we perceive it. Each of these articles, whether biased or not, have the ability to create reality for us and all readers in how we see Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is somewhat unsettling, but it is the only way to gain current information without actually going to the region and getting the news by experiencing everything firsthand. Everything has a bias, be it a news article, a picture, or a conversation with a friend. There is no way to avoid it. We even have a bias in our experiences, as our past and ideals will impact how we see what we are experiencing. With such a controversial topic like Israel and Palestine, it is impossible to get unbiased information, but we can look at both sides. I feel like this class is great for that. We all come from different backgrounds and are able to talk to different speakers and read different sources in order to see all sides, and it is really widening my perspective and allowing me to learn more than ever before.
Discussion Questions:
1. How did you find your articles to be in terms of bias? Did you think they were fairly neutral, or were they extremely biased, varying by source?
2. How do you think biased news sources feed into the conflict? Or do you think news sources (within reason) allow people to see other sides, creating an atmosphere of understanding?
No comments:
Post a Comment