With the intention of buying a cake for their wedding, a gay couple, Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig entered a bakery in Colorado asking the baker to make them a wedding cake. However, they were shocked when the baker turned them away. The couple proceeded by filing a complaint with the Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission accusing the baker, Mr. Philips, of discrimination. The commission and state courts had ruled in favor of the couple. However, the case was taken to the Supreme Court.
The two articles “In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple” by the New York Times, and the article “Supreme Court Sides with Colorado Baker Who Refused to Make Wedding Cake for Same Sex Couple” by Fox News are both biased. The main difference between the two articles is that the New York Times article is much more liberal and left wing. In the article the writer offers more insight on the couple and the actions they took when they proceeded with the case. The author also offers more on how the couple reacted and felt when they were turned away. The author also talks about the flaws in “freedom of religion” and speaks about how a commissioner stated “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.” The details in the New York Time insinuate that the case and system were flawed. The author seems to be in favor of the couple.
In the article “Supreme Court Sides with Colorado Baker Who Refused to Make Wedding Cake for Same Sex Couple” by Fox News, the author talks more about Mr. Philips and his side of the story. The author includes statements given by the Justices that support and justify Mr.Philip’s actions. He includes a statement given by Justice Kennedy, “The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” He also includes details on how and why Trump supported Mr.Philips.
There were many different types of biases which Gladstone touched upon that were seen in the articles. For example, there was a narrative bias and visual bias offered by the New York Times. The title of the article is kept vague in attempt to hook the reader and lure them into reading more. There is some resonance with Postman’s characteristics of the news and media. For example, the statements included in each article which are used to support the author’s bias is similar to the way media uses visuals and tone in order to emphasize their message.
The Blue Feed Red Feed project was fascinating to see. What was striking about it was how the same news channels remained on the same sides. Some news channels were more liberal than others and were seen multiple times on the blue feed. The tones of the articles on each side were also interesting as they both set blame on the opposite side.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple
Hello Angela, I am in complete agreeance that the two articles pose a clear and definite bias towards the situation. It is a very polarizing environment for politics these days and the media only fuels that animosity. Republicans would call this support for the gay couple virtue signaling, while Democrats would outright call this denial of service a human rights issue and anyone that says otherwise a complete homophobe. I wholeheartedly believe that if the media would stop polarizing such views and making each other seem inhumane then political progress would be made, but that’s just me I guess.
I realized from reading your response that many time the political forces name certain things rather than saying what they actually are. Rather than calling it something “unamerican” or a ploy, just say it is a human rights violation. Rather than wanting to know why complete the remedy first.
Hey Angela. I agree that these articles have a clear bias. From just the headlines, it is obvious that these sources are trying to push different narratives. My articles also included narrative bias, leaving the title vague and excluding important details. I think that type of bias is very common in the news in present day. Additionally, I agree with Erick’s comment as well. If American politics weren’t so polarized, it would be much easier to make progress within society.