Bias of the ‘#MeToo Movement’

The article, “The #MeToo Moment: I’m a Straight Man. Now What?” from the New York Times is written by reporter Daniel Vector. The New York Times states that Vector’s work usually is centered around breaking news and culture.

For some background information, the #MeToo movement started in October 2017 to gain attention through social media platforms to gain attention to things such as sexual misconduct and assault, with an emphasis in the workplace.

The bias that is prominent in this article is one that is gender centered. We can clearly notice this right off the bat, because the start of the article states, “There is a sense that women want us to be talking about it: ‘Guys, go figure it out’”. Since the article is written from by a male himself discussing the male perspective on this social media movement, this is automatically a bias created.

This movement can be seen as more of a social based issue, however, it enters the field of politics through the attention it has gained across social media platforms, creating political discussion. With this being said, we can use claims based on inference to understand the bias of the author of the article. While the article progresses, it becomes clear that men in the workforce are feeling as if they are pegged to be perpetrators of sexual misconduct and assault. It states in the article that when a male made an inappropriate statement to his female co-worker, he “He didn’t mean it sexually”.

The author’s male bias is strengthened through learning that he was a participant himself with the other males in the workplace that were undergoing an organized sex ed lesson required by their employer. We see examples of this bias occurring often in the media, and the article does a good job of bringing this to light when it states that, “men said they saw a lot of themselves in Aziz Ansari, the actor who recently was accused in an online article of ignoring the verbal and nonverbal cues of a former date”.

Examples like this that occur in the article reiterate the fact that this male bias of being pegged as the ones who commit these instances of sexual assault, misconduct, and rape in the work field exists.

This article ends with a quote that the author got from the woman conducting the sex ed lesson he sat in by stating, “Ultimately, I believe it’s going to be men helping men in order to be better humans, better allies, and better advocates,” she said.” Since the author decided to end the article with this quote, he was choosing to feed into this stereotype that women really only see themselves as victims of this kind of violence.

Lastly, another real-world example of this occurring in the political world is Trump’s continuous slanders of women that have been caught on tape. This also is comparable to the bias that was created throughout the article, as Trump’s reactions to the claims against him left us to believe that he was being framed as the “bad guy.”

Bias of the ‘#MeToo Movement’

Rebecca’s Media Diary

This past week there have been lots of stories of great importance and significance that have had significant media coverage. Due to this I engaged in a larger than usual number of sources and consequently received my news from the following sources:

  • BBC News
  • Sky News
  • CNN
  • The Times of London
  • New York Times
  • ABC
  • GBC
  • The Guardian
  • Twitter Moments
  • El País
  • Specific twitter accounts such as @BBCBreaking

I try and read a large array of different media sources from a number of different countries, however the vast majority of these sources are online sources, ranging from online articles to specific twitter accounts. It is quite difficult to receive physical media sources at University whilst ensuring they remain reputable, on occasion I read local news sources such as the Williamson County Sun yet I was not able to do this this week.

The reason I accessed most of these sources is because they are very user-friendly. The vast majority of them have mobile phone apps which is where I view them. It is easy for me to access these forms of news whilst walking between classes or eating my lunch. The news is easily digestible. On the few occasions I have read full articles it has taken more time and concentration. I also receive push notifications on my phone from a number of these sources as well, this allows me to get the gist of a certain news story and if I am interested in it I will then research it further and search for a more extensive article on reputable news sites such as BBC News or The Times of London. At times I have the Sky News channel on as white noise whilst I study, this allows me to be immersed in the news whilst listening selectively to what interests me.

As I have personally selected these sources, the vast majority of them reflect my own personal political opinions, especially the accounts I follow on my twitter accounts. I accept that this might not necessarily expose me to many opposing view points I do try and ensure that if I am interested in a story I read around the story and read that specific story on different platforms. I know that there will be clear biases in the articles and I do try and read the articles with an open mind accepting that authors do not write without preconceptions.

I believe that compared to the average individual I do use a large number of varied sources. The fact that I read news sources in different languages increases the awareness that I have. I spend more time involved with different forms of media due to all of the different ways in which I engage with media. The surge in popularity of social media has also allowed my access to different points of views. This has allowed me to develop my ability to recognise the differences between reputable and un-reputable sources of news, distinguish between biases both internationally and politically and access viewpoints that without specific forms of media (twitter etc.) I would not be aware of.

Rebecca’s Media Diary

Lahren’s thoughts on NYT’s “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?”

Tomi Lahren, a conservative political commentator, shows her opinions on a New York Times’ article. The Times’ article she critiques is titled “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?” written by Ekow N. Yankah in mid-November of 2017.


Lauren’s comments on the article posted just two days after the New York Times’ on Fox News released it. We are initially given a less than a slight indication of Lauren’s political stance, when she states, “I’ll save you the gag reflex” in reference to the audience members that have yet to read the article. She continues explaining the article written by the black college professor thoroughly following with the comment “you just can’t make this stuff up.”


It is very apparent from the start of Lahren’s critique of the article that she obtains a bias that is incredibly conservative due to the fact that she is continually making stabs at liberals and using sarcasm to make her point across that citizens, like the author of the article, are not intelligent by any means. She states that if the title of the article was instead “Can my child be friends with black people” that people who do not follow leftist values would cause serious havoc in the media.


This critique by Lahren is a very good example of polarized focus, due to the fact that her political standpoint is so strong that she is not willing to see other sides argument. Additionally, it shows heated conflict, because of her continuous use of war language will deliberately criticizing and tearing apart the author, continuing to call the author’s article, “editorial garbage.” With this being said, the direct examination of the coverage made by Tomi Lahren is from claims that are solely based on observation.


As if all of this evidence was not enough of an indicator of Tomi Lahren’s political stance and bias, she slanders Colin Kaepernick’s choice to take a knee during the national anthem at his NFL games, of which is seen as very leftist. A significant advantage that is gained from this being a video-based article response is the tone that can be directly heard from Lahren. It is easy to listen to her and find that she is on the defense the entire video and is out to make her conservative stance known. It is obvious that Lahren becomes inherently defensive, as she drops using facts when revealing her bias, but personally attacks the author by stating that he is just a bad parent.


The fact that Lahren brings up president Donald Trump in her response also is another signal that she is a supporter of him, which leads us further to believe (if it couldn’t be any more apparent) that she contains a conservative bias when looking at things such as this article. Lastly, Lahren wraps up by stating that we are becoming a leftist country because our college professors are unable to hold onto their bias. This indicates that she does not support the spreading of leftism and is against it completely.


Lahren’s thoughts on NYT’s “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?”

Heather’s Media Dairy 2/10-2/16

For the past week, I tracked the sources of which I looked to in order to obtain my news. I realized the news I mostly interacted with came from social media apps or the news app that apple provides. All the news sources I engaged with are provided on my smart phone, where it is easily available and convenient for me to access.

  • Sunday 2/10- Twitter, reading President Trump’s tweets
  • Monday 2/11- Twitter, watched Fox news clip
  • Tuesday 2/12- Read Fox and Vanity Fair on apple’s news app
  • Wednesday 2/13- Apple’s news app
  • Thursday 2/14- Did not watch the news (opps)
  • Friday 2/15- Twitter, watched a CNN clip
  • Saturday 2/16- Apple’s news app, The Washington Post

On social media, I use Twitter as my main resource for news. On twitter, I follow President Trump and Fox news, due to the fact that their accounts post often and they address a lot of the current events taking place. From there, I am able to find a topic that captures my attention, to which I then seek additional information on the internet and do my own personal research. Twitter also allows me to click on other tweets that are thus related to the initial tweet. There, I can see other politicians, or even the general public’s opinions on a an issue. Although the amount of information given is limited due to Twitters word count. President Trump and Fox, however, do post videos to which they are able to expand on the coverage of a particular issue. I do oftenly engage with these videos, which are usually just little segments of the overall news story that was broadcasted on TV.

I then also use the news app provided by apple on my iphone to read articles from Fox, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other news outlets that I come across. I typically just scroll through the feed until I find something that captures my attention, or seems interesting. Although I do not only limit my news sources to these specific news sources. I try and keep my perspective broad, and if a title on any news source seems interesting or worth the read, I will then go ahead and click on it. I found that a lot of the news sources are biased and some are not very professional in their content. For example, I read an article about the relations of the U.S. and Europe on Vanity Fair, which called the President an “asshole,” multiple times throughout the article. I try to keep my spectrum of news broad, but I do follow some of the pages, such as politics, international news, etc. that fulfill my personal biases. The app then will send me notifications whenever a news source is posted to the page.

The reason for which why I obtain my news from these particular sources is due to convenience. The news is easily ready on my smartphone, I then do not have to go out of my way in order to get the information I am seeking. The convenience factor is the main reason why I look to these sources to gain my information. I do not have a TV in my dorm room, nor do I really have time to go and find a place where I could sit down and actually watch the news. Therefore, looking at my smartphone and on the apps that I have mentioned is the easiest way for me to obtain my news.

The source I most often get my news from, which happens to be Fox news, reflects my personal biases due to the fact that on the political spectrum, I identify as a Republican. Fox is then seen as a conservative news source, where they express a great deal of Republican views. Since Fox seems to have the same viewpoint as I do, I therefore read and or occasionally watch their news channel most frequently.

After tracking my news, I then realized how easy it is for people to maintain their own biases because of the convenience of searching for particular news sources that agree with their beliefs.

By Heather Freed

Heather’s Media Dairy 2/10-2/16

Gun Control: Issues at Hand and Potential Solutions.

Recently, with the devastating mass school shooting at Parkland High School in Florida, it has raised many controversial conversations about the issue of gun control. The issue of gun control is divided between the Republican and Democratic party, who both have different views of what should be done to prevent horrific events like this from occurring again. I read two articles covering the topic of gun control, one from CNN and one from FOX, which have framed the issue in two different ways which portray their biases.

The first article I read, “Florida Shooting: Gun Control Advocates Rush to Distort the Truth About What Happened in Parkland,” by FOX immediately attacks liberals, saying that they over exaggerate the amount of school shootings that take place in order to bring more support for gun control laws. This immediately brings about the conflict framing, thus showing a divide between the two political parties. Fox makes statements says that gun control advocates proposals will only do more harm than good, by taking away guns from good abiding citizens. Liberals then call for more background checks, which Fox states, comes at a cost. Background checks themselves are costly, and differ price range from state to state. Not only do they cost money, but sometimes background checks can have “false positives,” confusing names of people and taking away guns from those who did nothing wrong. Republicans then say that the answer to gun control is not taking guns away, but rather eliminating gun-free zones. Gun-free zones make the average citizen defenseless, which shooters then have stated, this is why they have chosen these particular places to commit their brutal attacks, because they knew the general public could not defend themselves.

Fox uses the conflict frame, to emphasize their stance on gun control, and to denounce liberal ideals on the gun control issue. Fox is known for having a conservative viewpoint, therefore they state that liberals are too harsh in wanting to take guns away from ordinary citizens, and the issue is not the gun itself, but rather the lack of protection citizens would have if they could arm themselves in order to ensure their safety. But using the conflict frame, makes Fox’s readers feel as if Liberals are trying to take guns away altogether.

The next article that covers the gun control issue was an article by CNN that I read, “Gun Control: So Far, Just Words.” They state that they know that automatic weapons are illegal and have been for a long time. They say that Liberals do not want to eliminate guns all together, but do want to get rid of “bump-stocks,” which increase a guns rate of fire. A bump-stock can then turn a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon, which is what makes mass shooting so devastating, for the amount of bullets a gun is able to fire. They then make the statement that Republicans do not want to have the talk about eliminating bump-stocks because many are skeptical of how for that line would be drawn. Also they are worried about what loopholes would be taken to recreate this device, since it has shown to be simple and non costly.  

CNN uses the conflict frame to show how they believe Republicans are refusing to address the gun control issue. Showing that the two parties do not agree eye to eye on the issue and are refusing to compromise and thus discuss a solution. Using this frame, it shows the reader that the parties are at a great divide. Allowing the reader to focus on the conflict of the issue rather than show the solutions proposed from both sides of the argument. They then also highlight the fact that Republicans are refusing to even talk about the issue at hand, using the conflict frame they are increasing the debate to a more polarized stance.  


By: Heather Freed

Gun Control: Issues at Hand and Potential Solutions.

Article Comparison: Considering GOP Support of Gun Law Changes

In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School shooting in Florida this past week, public outcry against the frequency of school shootings has sparked renewed debate on gun control. In response, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee said that President Trump recently stated his openness to improvements to the current background check system. While Fox News and The New York Times both cover Trump’s statement, as well as the legislative measures introduced by Texas Senator John Cornyn (the Republican No. 2 in the Senate), the two outlets take very different approaches in their discussion of the prospective changes. While Fox frames Cornyn’s suggested legislation positively, stressing the bipartisan support for the legislation and highlighting failed gun reform efforts by the Obama administration, the Times article brings attention to the flaws present in the legislation and criticizes it as a “cautious” approach.

The difference in articles’ positions can be seen as early as their respective titles. Fox’s headline is relatively optimistic, claiming “Florida School Shooting: Gun law changes attract renewed GOP interest” . The piece’s content reflects the tone of it’s title, notably framing Trump’s interest in reform as a much-needed push to a Congress “divided on virtually every issue”. Furthermore, the article references the “bipartisan” support for Cornyn’s legislation several times, and notes that the Republican-controlled House has already passed a measure to strengthen the NICS background check system. Considered all together, these details relay a message of popular support for the legislation, and paints a picture of the GOP Congress and President as a competent and united force in the face of issues. This perspective is strengthened by the article’s inclusion of President Obama’s failure to pass gun reform legislation even with a Democrat-controlled Senate. Unlike the Times piece, the Fox article does not seem to rely heavily on the conflict frame often used by media–rather, it uses descriptions of unity and progress to frame Trump’s leadership in a relatively positive light. Finally, the article concludes by stating some of the arguments against gun control, giving the reader insight as to why politicians may be hesitant to pass reform measure.

In contrast, the Times article leads with the title “Trump Adds Cautious Support to Changes to Background Checks for Gun Buyers”. Unlike the Fox piece, this headline immediately creates a tone of uncertainty and hesitation surrounding Trump’s support for Cornyn’s proposed legislation. Although both articles briefly cover the bill’s content, as well as it’s support from the NRA, the Times piece highlights the millions of dollars in donations which Trump received from the NRA, undermining the association’s support. Following this assertion, the article goes on to state that “the legislation would have done little to stop the shooting last week” and points out that Cornyn’s background checks would not extend to people with no criminal records. Interestingly, although the two articles report many of the same events, they frame them in very different ways–for example, the Times cites the NCIS bill as a failure because it did not pass the Senate, while the Fox article touted it as a House victory. In this way, the Times frames the legislation and the discussion surrounding it as inadequate, and describes a conflicted Congress that is unlikely to pass anything fast.

To conclude, although both the Times and Fox articles contained many of the same facts, those facts were spun in very different ways in order to create two widely varying views of the current administration’s gun reform success. I believe that while the Fox article commits sins of omission by failing to include details such as the NRA’s donations to Trump, or the fact that the NCIS bill did not pass the Senate, the Times deliberately highlights details that damage the legislation’s validity while downplaying the bipartisan support for the bill (interesting note: the Times article never uses the word bipartisan).  This disparity is not surprising when considering that Fox is a conservative source, and the Times a more liberal one, but it is disappointing.



NY Times:

Article Comparison: Considering GOP Support of Gun Law Changes

Miranda Yannon’s Media Diary

Over the past week, I received news from the following sources.

  • The Washington Post phone application
  • New York Times website
  • New York Times Twitter page
  • CNN Twitter page
  • NBC DFW Twitter page
  • articles from varied news sources that people shared on social media

The primary reasons for me using these sources were because they were reliable and convenient. For example, I have the Washington Post phone application, which is a reputable and trustworthy news source, and I receive notifications from the Post on my phone which is very convenient.

In today’s society, with social media being such a dominating force in so many people’s lives, there is a long list of news sources that are convenient and readily available. Not all of these sources are reporting news accurately and unbiasedly, however. In order to make sure that I am not falling into the trap of all of these “fake” news sources, or at least these less reliable sources, I have sought out reputable sources and made them even more convenient and prominent in my life. I have done this by downloading their phone applications, following their Twitter accounts, subscribing to their newspapers, etc… Now that I have filtered what news is most readily available to me, I typically pay the most attention to news that I don’t have to seek out but rather comes to me. It is much more rare now that I read and seek out news that is from somewhere besides my typical list of sources.

I do my best to make sure that I am receiving news from some of the least biased sources in existence, but I think that is impossible to find sources that consistently completely eliminate bias.

It can also be a challenge to ignore all of the other news sources that appear in front of me on platforms such as social media when they get shared by people I know. I may be unsure of how reliable the source is, but it is hard to resist reading the information anyways. Because of this, I always try to take the news that is shared with me through social media platforms with a grain of salt. When I am searching out real and reliable news, I typically turn to my faithful Washington Post phone application and other “big name” sources with a reputation for reliability.

This past week, after the Parkland, Florida school shooting, the news was exploding and was everywhere, and I couldn’t always choose my source for it. I would scroll through social media, especially on Twitter and Facebook, and read version after version of the story without really thinking twice about the source. I initially heard about the shooting through a person’s twitter post, and then my twitter feed flooded with news articles from both recognized and unrecognized sources. Although I read more articles on this tragedy than I can count, I did try to make sure that the primary information that I retained and shared was from reputable news sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN.

By tracking my news sources, I definitely have realized that while I actively try to receive news from reliable sources, I still often read news from more abstract sources due to the current social media climate. In order to ensure that I am receiving the most accurate news, I plan on continuing to make the more reliable news sources more prominent in my life and on my social media. I also plan on being more aware of my intake of less reliable news so that I can do a better job of filtering news sources and absorbing the most accurate news.

I have acted with honesty and integrity in producing this work and am unaware of anyone who has not.

-Miranda Yannon

Miranda Yannon’s Media Diary