Yesterday, there was an annual charity dinner where the two president candidates, Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) gave speeches. In this blogpost, I am going to explain how the networks and newspapers view at the debate can influence the articles.
I am going to start of by comparing two networks to see if they represent the democrats, the republicans or if they are neutral. I will find out if this will influence the election. I am comparing Fox News and CNN.
After yesterday’s charity dinner Fox News wrote an article about the dinner. Fox is a republican network and they are known for supporting Trump in the election. The headline in the article says “Trump jeered over personal attacks against Clinton at charity dinner”. This can be a way for the newspaper to make people feel sorry for Trump because he got a lot of criticism from the crowd. In the rest of the article, it feels like Fox News tries to make excuses for all the rude comments by saying that he only tried to be funny. “Some of Trump’s attack lines showed a sense of humor”. They also mention that he got one of the biggest cheers of the night when he joked about his wife speech at the Republican National Convention. By mentioning this they try to show that some of his jokes were a success.
CNN is known for being a neutral newspaper in the US campaign, but in the article, they wrote about yesterday’s charity dinner it is clearly that they mean the Trumps behavior at the dinner was childish and rude. The headline says “Trump delivers harsh remarks on Clinton at charity dinner” which indicates that they did not like his behavior. This is clearly evident throughout the article. CNN is also criticizing Clinton. They say that “Clinton’s remarks largely lacked the self-deprecating humor that is typical at the Al Smith dinner” and “Her remarks, too, included sharp shots at Trump.” Due to the fact that the network is criticizing both of the candidates it is easy to see that the network is neutral in the debate
Now lets focus on the articles written by newspapers “The Huffington Post” and “The Hill”. The biggest difference between them is not only who they support, but also the way they portrait events and their reference.The Huffington Post is strongly supporting the democratic party. Already in the title of the controversial article, we notice their hatred to Donald Trump. They mean that the republican “made an ass of himself at the charity dinner”. Throughout the contentious article the writer mobs and makes fun of the candidate for president. In the text, there are used many quotes, where Trumps jokes about Hillary Clinton are pointed out.
The last paragraph of the article, which is an editor’s note, shocked me noticeably. It reads:
“Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”
I think this is where we get the real impression of what Huffington Posts meaning about the republican party is. The editor uses firm and appalling words, which make the reader clear on what they think about the candidate for president.
On the neutral side of the political debates, we have “The Hill” which is, according to VG, “The largest of the tentatively neutral political newspapers”. The article is very subtle and easy to read. It contains mainly a summary of the Al Smith Charity Dinner and doesn’t say anything controversial about either of the candidates. This is a good source for someone who is interested in the facts in general. This text also quotes many of Trumps mean jokes, but doesn’t comment on any of them, letting the reader form his own opinion.
In conclusion, there is a visible difference between how the media portraits the two candidates for president. Who and what they write about in their articles, depends mainly on their own opinion.