The 2017 & 2018 Women’s Marches: Reflecting and Anticipating
As influential institutions that have the ability to dictate the narratives of current events, people rely on media institutions to tell the truth honestly, quickly, and entertainingly. Although media outlets are often expected to uphold the principle that the truth will be told without the interference of special interest, the processes of digitization and globalization have created space for the growth and prominence of media bias. This space allows for media sources to choose the stories they want to report and the ways they want to report them.
Using reports covering the 2018 Women’s March on Washington from a moderate media source, a left-wing media source, and a right-wing media source to guide my analysis, I will work to identify the ways in which media bias and political devotion influence the narratives of influential current events.
Moderate Media Source
For my analysis of a moderate media source, I selected The Wall Street Journal. “The Journal” is an American daily newspaper that is widely influential among both American conservative social circles and American liberal social circles. Because The Wall Street Journal has a national reputation as being a thorough and reputable source among both political parties alike, I selected this publication as my moderate media source.
In anticipation of the 2018 Women’s Marches, The Wall Street Journal released an article titled, “Women March as Politics, Equal Rights Dominate Discussion” to discuss the atmosphere of previous Women’s Marches, as well as the atmosphere expected to surround the 2018 Women’s March.
Throughout the article, the reporters use an array of unbiased diction, a wide range of direct quotes, and a multitude of factual statistics to reflect and anticipate the 2017 and 2018 Women’s Marches. Instead of aligning with a particular political ideology, the reporters are extremely careful with the language they include, to avoid any political implications.
For example, when reporting a quote from President Donald Trump, the reporters from The Wall Street Journal write, “President Trump addressed the march with a post on Twitter that didn’t speak to the themes of the demonstrators. ‘Get out there now to celebrate the historic milestones and unprecedented economic success and wealth creation that has taken place over the last 12 months. Lowest female unemployment in 18 years!’ the president tweeted.” Instead of identifying more closely with the political ideologies of President Donald Trump or the ideologies of the protestors, the reports remain unbiased. They provide an honest, quick, and entertaining account of factual information.
Liberal Media Source
For my analysis of a left-wing media source, I selected Slate. Slate is a digital magazine that has reported on news coverage from an American liberal perspective for roughly 22 years. Although this publication self identifies as a “general interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics, news, business, technology, and culture,” it is widely known for its left-wing political ideology. Using the publication’s article titled, “Troller-in-Chief Strikes Again: Trump Says it’s ‘Perfect Day’ for Women to March,” we can identify the ways in which an extreme-left news publication reports on a liberally-charged event centered around women’s rights.
In this short news report surrounding the 2018 Women’s March On Washington, Daniel Politi uses distinctive language that ultimately separates the publication as a source for honest, quick, and unbiased truth. In the first paragraph, Politi sets the tone as he assumptively asserts Republican President Donald Trump’s viewpoint on the matter: “tens of thousands of women-and lots of men-across the country took to the streets Saturday, marking one year since the first Women’s March to protest Donald Trump’s inauguration. President Trump didn’t ignore the huge event, but in acknowledging the marches the commander in chief seemed to want to completely change the reason why so many decided to demonstrate.” From this first paragraph alone, readers can understand the manipulation of truth through Politi’s diction. He first uses sarcasm to imply that President Trump would assumptively ignore the entire march, and then he follows this implication by using words such as “seemed.” From his use of language, we can identify Politi veering off the path of truth, and instead moving towards a voice of bias and personal interest. The next three articles, which are equally as short, follow this same use of rhetoric while also including three photos below each article. The photos show images of protest at the Women’s March, all including provocative messages directed at President Donald Trump.
If this publication were to, in fact, prove to be a “general interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics, news, business, technology, and culture,” it would most likely avoid the use of sarcasm, personal opinion, and perhaps use a broader range of portrayals from the protest.
Conservative Media Source
For my analysis of a right-wing media source, I selected The Blaze. The Blaze is a conservative news and entertainment network that advertises its publications as “Authentic. Unfiltered. Fearless.” On their site, readers can identify headers that read, “ Stories That Matter Most” and “Our Perspective On Stories That Matter,” which accurately separate the publication’s right-wing perspective from the standpoints of general media publications. Using the publication’s article titled, “Women’s March: Pro-life groups not allowed, ‘sex workers’ welcome?” we can work to identify how a right-wing media outlet reports on a liberally-charged women’s movement.
In the article published by reporter Kate Scanlon, the conservative journalist works to describe the frustrations felt by many liberals when sex workers were to be excluded from the events of the 2018 Women’s March. While the article could be interpreted as well-written and unbiased if it were truly reporting on the controversy of sex worker dismissal, it is only at the very beginning and at the very end of her article that readers are able to understand the true aim of the article. She begins her report by quickly stating that pro-life groups were also left out of the demonstrations — but without any controversy. She then goes on to explain the wild frustrations of liberals when another social organization was left out, and the ultimate inclusion of that social group. By the end of her article, she again quickly reminds readers that throughout all of this, pro-life groups were not included, but never mentions any frustrations or controversy expressed by conservatives.
Like mentioned before, Scanlon would have produced a well-written, unbiased statement regarding the dismissal of sex workers if she avoided including her personal opinion. However, although they were very short and could easily go unnoticed, the reporter did in fact include short moments of personal bias that ultimately created an extremely sarcastic and skeptical piece of work.
The Wall Street Journal
Slate
The Blaze
