CNN vs. Fox News

I spent this afternoon flipping between CNN and Fox news to investigate the difference between how they relay information to the public. Immediately it is seen that CNN is obviously much more liberal in their stances, and that Fox has a right-wing, conservative slant on how they transmit their news. Upon watching several stories from both channels, I have found that they basically convey the same exact news stories, just in different ways. CNN puts a liberal spin on their news, and Fox leans the opposite way; however, they are communicating the same basic news stories to their audiences.

For example, both channels discussed the recent announcement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter to retire after the Court’s current term is over. The CNN news commentators who were discussing this topic seemed rather pleased that Souter decided to retire at a time when there was a Democrat president and Democrat-majority Senate. They maintained that there is no possible way we will get a Republican justice appointed to the court with conservative view points on controversial issues such as abortion. Fox news, on the other hand, reported this news in a negative fashion. The news reporter announced that Republicans are worried that there is too much Democrat power in the Senate, yet they are ready to put up a fight. CNN counter-acted this type of statement by stating that the President has the right to nominate whomever he likes to the bench.

Also, a topic of the news that was presented on both channels this afternoon was the issue of global warming. CNN had a small segment on ways to help contribute to the hault of global warming. Their suggestions included ideas such as using fluorescent light bulbs, inflating your car tires appropriately, changing the filter on your air conditioners, buying hybrid cars, insulating your water filter, along with several other ideas. Fox news, however, spent a few minutes announcing that a recent study has found that 33.3% of children fear that the earth will cease to exist, and a whopping 56% believe that the earth will be unpleasant for human existence within their lifetime. Fox news blamed Al Gore for this hysteria, and accused him of scaring the children with his bogus documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

President Obama’s job in the White House thus far was also a topic discussed on both channels. CNN commented how he is doing so many things so quick, and has a big agenda already compared with past presidents. The news reporter described this facet as “breath taking” and “stunning.” Fox news, as could be expected, completely had the opposite view on this. They maintained that the President is taking on way too many different tasks at once, or at least he says he is, and that it is absolutely ludicrous for him to think he will get everything done. The news reporter said that he should stop misleading the American people and pick one or two big issues to cover in his agenda, and just maybe he will be able to address those.

Over the years I have found that I like CNN’s coverage better than that of Fox news. At least now with a Democrat president in office, it feels like Fox news is bellyaching and complaining about the current state of affairs, instead of just impartially reporting the facts. There is no news channel more conservative than Fox, however there is a channel more liberal than CNN—MSNBC. This reason also leads me to believe that CNN is the more unbiased, fair and balanced news channel of the two, and is probably why I prefer objective over partisan coverage.

Response to a Classmate's blog post

A classmate of mine recently posted a blog about the controversial issue of gun control. Christy points out how Jersey City created an ordinance in 2006 limiting the number of guns an individual could buy to one per month; however, an appeals court overturned this law. The Supreme Court will soon hear the case and decide whether or not it is constitutional for a city to create such laws, since states already monitor the sale of handguns. Currently, New York is the only city with a limit on how many handguns one can purchase, limiting it to one every 90 days. If the Supreme Court sides with Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, Jersey City will be the second city in the United States to have laws restricting the number of guns sold to an individual.

I agree with Christy when she poses the question, “how many handguns does one really need?” If someone is buying several guns every single month, I see that as a reason to be alarmed. As Christy said, if handguns are being distributed for their original purpose of self defense, it seems ludicrous that someone would need countless different handguns to protect themselves. People who are buying numerous handguns every month raise sheer suspicion in my eyes, as they are most likely illegally selling and distributing them to those who are not able to purchase them, especially in urban cities where crime rates are high, such as Jersey City where the debate is taking place. The Jersey City mayor even stated himself that people with clean records are buying guns for gang members, and that this law is necessary to limit the amount of guns a single person can purchase each month.

Opponents of the law maintain that such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment, a right to bear arms. I see it differently, though. The law is not stopping the amount of guns that can be sold, it is merely limiting it per month. If you want to buy handgun for protection and self-defense, go buy one. The law is not stopping you. However, if you want to buy ten more of the same gun just a week later, that is where the law steps in. Opponents in urban cities should realize that this law is only helping to keep them safe. I agree wholeheartedly with them that every single person in the United States who is legally able, should be allowed to purchase a handgun for self defense, there is no question about that. However, I feel that cities—especially those of high-crime and violence—should be able to set their own laws limiting the number of guns sold per capita, per month. Who else knows the best way to protect a city more than its own mayor and council?

Christy ends her blogpost with a quote from Republican state senator Marcia Karrow who tried to legitimize her stance on how it is wrong to limit the sale of handguns by stating, “You can’t wear more than one pair of shoes at a time but lots of women have them,” she said.” I agree with Christy when she responded by saying it is completely inappropriate to compare lethal weapons to fashion accessories. This is like comparing apples to oranges. A wide array of shoes is totally normal, as there are specific shoes that go with specific settings—running, hiking, professional, formal. There are not, however, a wide array of settings that are appropriate for specific genres of handguns. You load the bullet, pull the trigger, and a shot is fired… every time. I believe that Karrow completely ruined her defense on this issue by making such a ridiculous comparison. In the end, I feel that it is appropriate for governments of high-crime and violence-prone urban cities to set their own standards for gun sales, as ultimately the law is keeping their cities much safer in the long-run.

Response to the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

Yesterday I listened to the Rush Limbaugh radio show for the first time. I found his commentary to be more conservative than what I am used to listening to; however he did have some solid points that I could agree with. One part of the show that I found to be quite interesting and a little absurd was when a listener called in describing a press conference with President Obama that he had watched on tv and Limbaugh’s response to the caller. The caller described how a representative of the television channel BET asked the president how he was going to remedy the problem of the 50% unemployment rate among African American males in New York and the sky-high drop out rate with his new stimulus package. He went on to explain how the President completely dodged the question and instead talked about health care and energy. Rush Limbaugh’s response to this statement is what surprised me the most.

Limbaugh replied to the caller by saying that the reason Obama ditched the answer to the question is because he has no answer at all…because he isn’t even working on the unemployment problem. Rush maintained that the American education system is designed to educate Americans and not have anyone drop out. He explained that the education system is a mess, and unemployment rates are high, and that it is going to stay that way until a capable Republican president enters office who is willing to work on the problems. Limbaugh went on to say that they have been claiming to be trying to fix the unemployment and drop out rates for as long as he has been alive, but instead they keep going up. He remarked that they aren’t really doing anything to fix the problem and Obama is just another Democrat sweeping the problems under the rug.

This, Limbaugh explained, is why Obama dodged the question on education and unemployment, and instead talked about health care and energy. He demanded that the problems have only gotten worse in the last three months and that the reason is because the Americans who are being affected by unemployment are voting Democrat, and that they have been all their lives in hopes of an actual change taking place one day. These people are making a big mistake, Limbaugh insisted, and nothing will get better for them until they elect a Republican to fix their problems, especially people in urban areas such as New York City. Rush Limbaugh ended his argument by asserting that the reason these problems are not getting fixed is either because President Obama does not know how to fix it, or he just doesn’t want to.

I cannot say that I agreed with this portion of his radio show. It seems a little ignorant on Limbaugh’s part to be making such bold claims about an entire ideology of Presidents. I believe that Obama IS trying to fix the unemployment and drop out problems in America, but this is by no means an easy task. Perhaps Rush Limbaugh should try walking in the president’s shoes for a day and try to remedy the problem himself before making such radical claims about his true agenda on these very difficult issues.

Comparing the Daily Show with the 6:30 network news

Last night I watched the encore episode of the Daily Show from Obama’s 100th day in office. The half-hour long episode consisted of three main discussion topics: Arlen Specter dropping the GOP, a spoof of a “senior black correspondent” evaluating Obama’s progress thus far, and an interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin, a presidential historian.

The discussion of Arlen Specter switching from the Republican side to join the Democrats was covered in just as much detail as was seen on the 6:30 network news. Both programs explained how this means that the Democrats will gain the majority of control over the House and Senate, most likely making the party filibuster-proof. One thing that Jon Stewart said that I hadn’t seen on the network news, however, was his belief that Arlen Specter switched parties merely to get re-elected. He noted how Arlen told reports he switched sides “out of principle,” but Stewart doesn’t buy this and denounced the notion by maintaining that he switched only so that the Democrats would elect him to serve again. Besides that tidbit, the information that was presented on both the Daily Show and the network news seemed to be equal in their content and degree of factual information.

The second segment of the episode featured a satire of a “senior black correspondent” evaluating President’s Obama’s success so far on a scale made up of slang vernacular. He maintained that the stimulus bill is “off the heazy fo sheazy”. The comedian also noted that the closing of Guantanamo Bay was “aight” because it stands for everything America has done wrong in this war on terror. This type of discussion certainly would never appear on the 6:30 network news; however that obviously wasn’t Daily Show writers’ intentions. This type of dialogue is purely for comedy-sake and to get a laugh out of viewers, however the issues that that were discussed are of the same genre of issues that are discussed on standard network news programs.

The last part of the Daily Show included an interview with presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Goodwin discussed the status of President Obama thus far on his 100th day in office. She stated that Obama is doing a good job so far, and described him as being calm, steady, and thick-skinned. She went on to say that he doesn’t get rattled very easily and has more confidence than most of the presidents who have led our nation. This type of commentary also appears on the standard network news, although it would have a different spin depending on if you’re watching CNN or Fox news. Goodwin also mentioned that President Obama is trying to maintain some sense of normalcy in his life, and that he still gets freaked out when everyone stands up for him upon walking into a room.

Upon comparing the news presented in the Daily Show with that of the 6:30 network news, it appears that both programs cover basically the same exact news, just in different ways. While the network news tends to do so in a more traditional manner, it is clear that John Stewart purposely puts a humorous tilt on all of his information, thus making it more entertaining and enjoyable to viewers. As an avid viewer of CNN, I always find it refreshing to watch the Daily Show and get a little humor with my news. I wouldn’t say that the network news covers stories in any more detail than the Daily Show does, as they both offer basically the same length and depth of information in their news coverage.