One (1) media dies everytime you don't click on this artcul; *VIRUS FREE*

Did blogger really delete my post draft, or do I have a false memory of having done work in class?

Helen is back and asking all the real questions. Another question I will be asking is: How might the media influence an individual’s political beliefs? After all, there's a lot of clickbait out there, and how can we tell if the news source is actually committed to providing source-supported perspectives on important issues, or simply trying to get us to pay subscription fees? If the news source does the second thing, then what are some effects on readers' viewpoints?

The media allows typical citizens access to information. Humans went from word of mouth, to newspapers, and then to the internet, which has become deeply engrained in the lives of many Americans. We rely on the media to connect us to the world beyond our general vicinities, and the type of media that we consume molds our viewpoints, whether consciously or subconsciously. It not only affects our stances on various issues, but also affects which issues we prioritize, and how we look at politicians from the lens of our individual rankings of priorities. For this blog post, I will be talking about the Sutherland shooting, looking at two articles from news sources that are generally known to be very biased (and not the best sources of information): Buzzfeed, which targets liberals, and Fox News, which targets conservatives.

Buzzfeed Article: "This Church Family Was My Everything”: Sutherland Springs Mourns Deadliest Shooting In Texas History

This article, written by Claudia Koerner on Nov. 6, 2017, reports on the emotional aftermath of the Sutherland shooting. The church had just re-opened, and there was a memorial service that was really just a "return to Sunday's worship". The article offers a positive and hopeful perspective, showing the pride of the town's members in their religion and bond. The article is convincing, as it is mostly a summarized description of the town's events and physical state, and quotation from citizens. 

Much of the credibility comes from the somber tone of the article. I was definitely surprised that the only part pushing gun control consisted of a quote from one of the victims. (I found the "omg make guns illegal" stuff in the comments section instead.) Rhetorical devices include imagery of friends and family embracing and raising their hands in song, and act to create more of a sympathetic tone than anything. Of course, this could all be just a scam to say "we don't want more people to die", but they didn't push gun control to the point of radicalism. The source was written after Koerner, who was based in Los Angeles, personally traveled to Texas, probably solely for the sake of writing this article. Most people who have an opinion on guns probably haven't seen the aftermath of the Texas shooting themselves, so the fact that the author was at the scene, in person, likely influenced her perception of the families left behind.

I think that the article may have softened some reader viewpoints. However, according to the comments at the bottom of the article, at least 47 people still believe that we should crack down on "the NRA, lax gun laws, and blind party loyalty". The aforementioned comment, in full, is this:

"Biesenbach said she fears for the future children like her grandson will face if the country continues in the direction it’s going. The world would be better if more people kept God in their life, she said, and raised their children to know right from wrong.”

No, the problem isn’t that people don’t have God in their lives, as religion doesn’t make you a good or bad person. Our problem is the NRA, lax gun laws, and blind party loyalty. - Emma Shouse

As you can see, it was a response to a quote from one of the citizens. I think this comment is a good example of how people base their opinions on "new" issues based on beliefs that they already had beforehand. Biesenbach believes that the shooter did not know right from wrong due to religion, while Shouse believes that the shooting could have been prevented with laws and a change to a common mindset of the American people.

In conclusion, the article seems to have informed, but not necessarily persuaded. This does not speak for the media as a whole of course— daily interaction with the opinions of other people can definitely alter one's beliefs.

Fox Article: Texas shooting: Gun laws aren't the problem, government incompetence is

(I'd like to note that some other articles were more sympathetic than angry, but this one directly addressed liberals, so I thought it'd be more fun to discuss.)

This article, written by Stephen L. Miller in light of the Sutherland shooting, is opinion-based. Rather than creating more gun control laws, Miller believes that the government should work harder to enforce laws already in place.  Apparently, the shooter's records were never submitted to the FBI, so he got through background checks just fine. The opinion is that the shooting was a preventable mistake, and this isn't the first time a shooting has happened because of a mistake in datakeeping, and making new laws will backfire.

About credibility, the typos in the article were very off-putting, and included "The federal government failed to do it’s job properly." and "Kelley’s court records were never submitted the FBI database". It makes me wonder how many editors actually went through the article.

I haven't exactly heard good things about the credibility of Fox News. Since I want to find out for myself how accurate it is if you take away all the opinion (yeah, there's a lot of opinion), I went to this fact-checking site.

And before yall tell me off for having "random members of the internet" check 169 things for me, the website got a Pulitzer Prize so I'm going to assume it's trustworthy.

Um, yeah. This isn't the greatest.

While I'm even less optimistic about Fox than I was before I saw that graph, I checked the citations of the article on the Sutherland shooting, and they seem to be correct. It is an opinion article, so as long it passes basic credibility standards (no blatant misinformation), it's more about bias than correctness.

The article cites at least two liberal sources to make its point (NPR and Mayors Against Illegal Guns). The article does not provide much in terms of solutions besides enforcing current laws. The tone is critical and blunt, straightforward and even sarcastic (eg. "Great work, guys" and "But sure, let’s turn over our health care to the government now.") The tone aids in giving the author credibility, making him seem like the "voice of reason" amidst all the people freaking out about making new laws.

This article contains the typical opinions that you'd expect from a conservative: distrust of Big Gov, "you just don't understandd" @finger-pointing liberals, and defense of the NRA and people who legally own guns. Of course, most Fox readers are conservative too, and it shows: there's a lot of consensus at the bottom of the article, scattered with some discourse here and there. It's also interesting how there are so many more comments on this article than on the Buzzfeed one. (To be fair, the Buzzfeed one was nowhere near as political.) I also noticed that this comment

If liberals got their way the end game would be total control of govt over the people we would become like North Korea .- stannjesus

... got 9 likes? I mean, the liberals definitely want a lot of control in the hands of the federal government, but... I hope this guy and the 9 people who liked the comment weren't serious. I know quite a few liberals and I'm pretty sure that not all of them would want a dictatorship in which all the soldiers are malnourished and refrigerators are seen as a status symbol.

I noticed a lot of argument over the original intent of the Constitution, and what the founders would think of the semi-automatics and other technologies that are common today. I'm glad that people think deeply about interpretation of laws, or how laws impact individuals and groups, and engage in (mostly) civilized debate about those nuances.

Meh. I just think that everybody needs mandatory gun training, not just background checks, before they're allowed to use guns. But they should be allowed to carry guns on them. After all, though I disagreed with stannjesus's previous comment, I do deeply agree with this one.

"Criminals are not limited to muskets neither should law abiding citizens be limited to muskets ."- stannjesus