Have them check out these two AP articles, posted to Yahoo about 30 minutes apart and see if they can pick up the signs of bias in the writing.
Extra credit if your kid catches the bias in the photographs without coaching.
Have them check out these two AP articles, posted to Yahoo about 30 minutes apart and see if they can pick up the signs of bias in the writing.
Extra credit if your kid catches the bias in the photographs without coaching.
Yow. That’s pretty stark. I am going to try this with the 3-year-old girl I babysit, just to see.
What’s the bias in the photographs?
I wish more of the news was candy coated. Which flavor do you think is the least biased: vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry?
The photo of Obama makes him appear angry and confrontational, but the one of Clinton shows her smiling and happy. At least that’s the way I see it.
Ha! Well, last night, the “bias” is that in the “Obama confronts…” article, the photo chosen is a tight shot picture of his head and neck, taken from below, while he looks rather majestically off to the left. In the “Obama discounts…”, is was a shot of his head taken from a little further out and from slightly above with lots of empty space around him, while he was making an ouchy face. One clearly designed to make him look strong and the other weak.
Today, the bias is that the photograph in the second article about Obama’s words is of Hillary cheering. :smack:
The first article is Agence France-Presse (AFP), not the AP. I also think that you can’t accurately judge bias with one photo except in extreme tabloidy cases.
Read the headlines - he’s a flip-flopper.
j/k, we’ve still got the Obama Illinois Senate stickers on our cars.
Thanks for the correction. Coulda swore last night the links on the front page both said AP. Oh, well.
As for the photo - is there an archival website that might have the ones that were posted with the articles last night? 'Cause it really was to “extreme tabloidy” proportions.
That’s actually why I opened both articles last night! They were both linked, one after the other, and the name of the link was just the headline. So I thought they were being contradictory! Only after reading both articles did I realize they ultimately say the same thing, but in very different ways.