The Big Bad Wolfe
November 9, 2015. For the majority of the U.S. population it was probably any other Monday, but that was not the case at the University of Missouri. This was the day university president, Tim Wolfe, made his resignation. After numerous incidents regarding sexism, homophobia, and race students were outraged with their president. After a week long stretch of protests and a particular hunger strike from a student, Mr. Wolfe finally made his decision to resign. The media, in particular Fox and CNN, took two different approaches at telling this story. Each providing accurate information on what happened, but also implementing bias giving the reader two separate perceptions on the story.
As usual, Fox took a more conservative standpoint on the story of Tim Wolfe’s resignation. They were more straight forward than CNN saying that the issues going on at the University of Missouri should be in full responsibility of Mr. Wolfe. CNN also agreed that Mr. Wolfe is to blame for the recent incidents, but they did not blame the president to the same extent as Fox did. Another difference between the two articles is the way they look at the future after the effect of the incident. CNN has a more positive outlook at the future for students at the University of Missouri, going into full detail and providing multiple examples on how the university will benefit from their experience. Fox, on the other hand, briefly described what they thought was going to happen at the University of Missouri post-resignation, but as a side note to the rest of the article. The emphasis Fox and CNN puts on different parts of the story alters the way you perceive it. Neither story lied or exaggerated, but because each article highlighted different parts of the story you retain different opinions on the same story because of the bias in each article.
To conclude, after reading the articles of the same story from CNN and Fox News it is evident that anyone can detect the opposing positioning between the two. To elaborate, subsequent to reading the CNN article, a reader will not necessarily be left with the idea that is more in favor of the colored movement of the students attending the University of Missouri, but one that puts the students in a more just light. On the other hand, those who read the Fox News article will be exposed to a near opposite effect. Particularly one that emphasizes the blame on the president, while sharing less about what the students had to say. Although few news companies will directly admit their opinion to a story, it is evident that all display opinionated signs. These slight alterations create a general bias to anyone who may peruse the news company’s information, furthering the responsibility the companies carry with the general public.