So who exactly is Matt Lauer?
Although he has been on television screens for decades, Matt Lauer is now the subject of talk for a different reason. Lauer was accused of sexual misconduct this week, and the ongoing investigation has led to media coverage across almost every network. Two stories in particular, take a stab at this story in extremely different ways. While the CNN article depicts Lauer in an apologetic, light manner, USA Today used his inappropriate behavior to tarnish Lauer’s name and character, leaving readers to feel as if Lauer is a monster or just a person who made a dumb mistake.
Right off the bat, the person knows Matt Lauer is extremely sorry for his actions as the author titled the article “Matt Lauer: ‘To the people I have hurt, I am truly sorry.’” This has an immense impact on how the viewer will perceive this story. The reader might have no clue what Lauer was accused of, so without this vital information the reader is under the impression that this man is sorry for his actions. This allows the reader to feel sympathetic for Lauer because he lost everything, yet the reader does not necessarily know the crime he committed. The author strategically stacked his article in a manner that would make viewers feel more compelled to forgive Lauer and understand his point of view. This is evidently seen when the article mentions how Lauer lost his job and reputation before they mentioned that “At least three women have filed complaints with NBC.” Even better, those 9 words are the only mention of what Lauer did in order to lose his job and taint his character. The rest of the article further discusses Lauer’s apology speech and then has his colleagues weigh in on the situation. Two stand out lines were, “Some NBC veterans said they did not recognize the man they were now reading about,” and a quote from former coworker Honda Kotb, “’It is a difficult morning here again,’ Kotb said. ‘Our top story is once again about our former colleague.’” These quotes further the notion that inappropriate behavior is something so opposite from how Lauer usually acts. In the reader’s mind, Lauer is given a sense of humanity and is seen as someone who made a one time mistake. By selecting to quote one of Lauer’s dear coworkers, the author is serving as a gatekeeper. He is only allowing biased information to go out, and it furthers the reader’s perception on Lauer, ultimately leading to them being more sympathetic towards this scandal.
Contradicting CNN, USA Today took a completely different angle on the same story, giving viewers a sense of hatred and disgust towards Lauer. At first glance, one would not even know the article is covering Matt Lauer’s public apology because the headline is “Matt Lauer scandal: There may be as many as 8 victims, Lauer breaks his silence.” This automatically portrays Lauer in a negative light. The word choice of scandal leaves the reader feeling that this event is something shocking, something that is illegal and dangerous. Paired with Lauer “breaking the silence” (Is Lauer a scared kid hiding from his parents?), the headline leaves a bitter taste in viewer’s mouths. Once in the article, it is not even apparent that Lauer was apologetic to his wrongdoing as his apology speech was called a “statement.” Coverage and quotes from the victims were right at the beginning of the article, giving the reader a grasp of the trauma and damage Lauer has caused. They even used a quote from a colleague saying that his behavior is “incredibly, incredibly disgusting.” These small differences give viewers a completely different view of Lauer. They view him as a criminal, and as a person with little character or moral. Scrolling down to the bottom of the article, a reader finally sees a quote from Lauer which says he is, “truly sorry.” The author did not even quote a full sentence from his speech, but instead used a blanket statement apology. This quote election furthers the idea in reader’s minds that Lauer is careless and disgusting, as he does not even have the audacity to give a meaningful apology.
The drastically different coverages exemplified through CNN and USA Today show the immense impact the news media has on society’s perceptions of a story. CNN allowed viewers to feel sympathy for Lauer, but did not give insight on to what put him in the dog hole. Yet, USA Today only focused on the negative, taking away knowledge of any sincere apology from Lauer. Both of these articles have a clear bias, which can be positive and negative for society. If a reader only accesses one of these articles, they will have shaped a view that neglect a completely different side to the story. This can be dangerous because reader’s can infer and make judgements that are misinformed or not including the full picture. On the flip side, having different takes on stories is important because it gives full coverage of daily events in the world. Not every media source should use the same quotes and bias because that would neglect society from the full picture. Neither CNN or USA Today was a more insightful source, but when combining the two, it allows the audience to make a better informed judgement on their perception of the topic.
