Last week we saw Republican Texas Senator, Ted Cruz give a filibuster style speech on the floor of the U.S Senate in opposition of Obama Care. He spoke for 21 hours and 19 minutes. Very impressive for anyone to undertake. And why did I call this a 'filibuster style speech'? Because it was not a true filibuster. Senator Cruz was talking during an allotted amount of time given to anyone in the Senate, nor was he holding up a Senate vote. What Senator Cruz was doing was bring as much media attention to the issue of Obama Care. Without a doubt he did just that. But has this attention be equal among media sources? Not by a long shot. News organizations such as Politico and CNN were quite to point out the fact that while this was long speech it was not holding up any real business in the Senate. While news organizations such as Fox News and Red State focused more of their coverage on more of the substance of what Cruz was talking about, defunding Obama Care.
Now does this point out Media bias, not really. What happens when we compare this quasi-filibuster from a Texas Republican to another filibuster, this time from a Texas democrat. Enter Texas state Senator Wendy Davis. Senator Davis reached headlines when she held a true filibuster to hold up the vote on Texas' most strict ban on abortions. She was successful in delaying the vote so long that the the law could not be passed and signed into law by its deadline of midnight, but Texas Governor Rick Perry did call a special session of the State's legislature to get it to eventually pass. She spoke for 11 hours and 39 minutes. The glaring difference in the media's reactions to each of these speeches is how much Wendy Davis was praised and embraced compared to Ted Cruz.
News organizations like the Huffington Post, largely left leaning, was praising her stand on abortion and calling her a hero. Also calling for her to be the next Governor of Texas; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-stanford/wendy-davis-governor_b_3670241.html
While it came to Senator Ted Cruz's speech we wasn't held was as much praise or esteem from the Huffington Post; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/ted-cruz-obamacare-speech_n_3983954.html
Not all speeches, filibuster, or grandstanding are created equal. Each is for a different cause, some work, some don't and some are just for the attention. And not in a bad way, they all want the media to take notice of what they are doing so they can get their message out the people. So when it comes to both Cruz and Davis they did what they set out to do, get attention to their cause. A side effect to this attention is that sometimes your message is changed, altered or eliminated by the ones reporting.
GREAT POST! I think this is a great example of media coverage and the different effects of it. You highlighted FOX NEWS, CNN etc and it is clear that they both, at times, have their bias. I totally agree that the ultimate goal of each case is to garner attention for each of the specific causes highlighted but I also feel that the coverage and media role for them both should have been more of a straightfoward report opposed to criticism and praise. It is the criticism and praise which show's bias or a news mediums stance on certain issues. As you alluded to, clear cut bias can show how media tempts to influence instead of inform which is not a substantial motive when it comes to hard news because that influence and attention created from media coverage can ultimately change the message and impact how media views the overall motive of the goals attempting to be ascertained.
ReplyDeleteWell stated, and as a personal note, you did a great job delivering facts on a partisan topic without choosing a side- not always an easy task. What you speak of in your post could be a variety of bias, but probably bias by spin. As you stated, many of the news sources covered both Senators filibuster (or filibuster styled) speeches, but delivered them in various lighting. Through manipulating what part of the story is focused on, various news agencies have the ability to report "facts" while still keeping with their underlying agenda, be it left or right. Spin allows the mass media outlets to say they are covering a story objectively while not covering a story in a truly objective manner.
ReplyDeleteIn our class text Bennett points out that the public has been citing media bias as a bigger and bigger problem since the 1980's (p.38-39). According to a PEW Research survey, 55% of people surveyed stated that they viewed media bias in politics as a bigger problem than that of money in politics. I am not sure I would classify myself in that 55%, but polls like this showcase the size of the issue of bias in the media. I agree that the same message can be covered by both sides and be taken in many different ways depending on the spin bias placed on it by either the journalist or the news outlet itself. It is up to the consumers to demand a change by voting with their wallets, or by educating themselves through alternative forms of news.
Good Post! The media news stations pick and choose what stories that want to highlight, generally based on biased perspectives. This is how the media machine works, therefore it is not surprising that the major reporting stations did not give Cruz significant credit for voicing his concerns over Obama Care. It did draw attention from those individuals that seek there news information from internet sources. YouTube has been consumed with videos about Cruz and his 'filibuster'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGes_TjIu4 The discussion on the news sources was mainly about whether the 'talk' was a filibuster' or not. There was little attention on the actual issue. Props to Cruz for 'talking' so long, at least some individuals heard what he was saying and appreciate his attempt at talking up the topic even more. Now Americans have to sit back and wait and watch to see how Obama Care will pan out. Defunding is looking to be a topic in the next few months, one that hopefully will draw attention not matter which side of the issue you stand on.
ReplyDelete