There is definitely bias in the news concerning the particular issue of President Obama being a smoker (or an occasional smoker). While this can be a taboo vice, it is especially taboo when it is a habit had by a President who is signing papers to increase smoking laws. It is understandable that U.S. citizens have every right to hold their President to a certain standard, especially when it pertains to the health of their leader, but does the press have a right to portray their news in a biased manner on the topic?
The first article is written by the Christian Science Monitor, and is surrounding President Obama’s “struggle” to kick his smoking habit. This article is quite biased, even concerning the headline, “Obama “struggling” to control smoking habit.” Even though the word struggling could be a quote, the quotation marks make it seem sarcastic. When the article carries on to say, “Obama has promised not to smoke in the White House, although it was unclear whether he meant that in the most narrow sense.” It insinuates that he is going to break his word about smoking in the White House, or that he chose his words carefully so as to not hold himself up to the standard of not smoking around the White House, just as long as he is not inside of it. The article goes on to mention Obama’s legislation concerning greater tobacco regulation, and tells of his negative opinion of the habit. Perhaps to be less biased, the article could have focused on how Obama, a man struggling with the addiction can act as a role model for those who are considering taking up the habit.
The second article is from the Daily Mail, and gives a ton of updated information on Obama’s recent health check up, but is also biased concerning the portrayal of his medical results. Right away the article mentions the recommendation of his doctor to continue his efforts towards quitting smoking, but it also mentions the doctor’s recommendation to not drink as much as he has been lately. This creates the drinking and smoking as the center of the article, whereas a completely unbiased approach that was not going for shock factor would have been surrounding the main points on the fact that Obama is healthy, except could improve not just his smoking and drinking habits, but also his cholesterol levels, and could also put more focus on the fact that he had visited some patients in the hospital that had been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall though, part of the bias of the article could come from the fact that it seems to be a little all over the place, information is not organized wisely, and it seems as if it was just updated haphazardly.
The third article is the least biased of all three, and it has information balanced by quotes from Obama as well as his doctor. Each portion of information is balanced with a good and a bad point. He smokes, but he has an excellent heart rate. The article felt as if it gave the information without generating a bias- it lets the reader form their own opinion.
Image from: http://thenovapulse.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/obama-smoking1.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment