How media bias is shown and analyzed with regards to the topic of the Indigenous Peoples’ Day parade

Acknowledgements

To my peers for helping to peer review and to Professor McCarthy for guiding me, thank you and I acknowledge the help and advice you have given in developing my ideas to create this paper.

Through an analysis of the writing and biases in the articles on the topic of ‘Indigenous People’s Day vs Columbus Day parade, resolution and activities’, I will be able to develop a heightened awareness of media bias and its impact (whether that is significant or negligible) on us. Before understanding the types of bias that I will analyze, it’s necessary to convey the definition of media bias for the purposes of my paper. Bias is the leaning in favor or against a certain idea or thing, usually in a way that is unfair. Media bias is the perceived bias of journalists and publishers in the way that stories are covered.

Looking at the headers and subheaders, the Associated Press (AP) and National Press Radio (NPR) give summative titles which coincides with the content of their articles and relays minimal bias but the New York Times (NYT) and Fox News have more biased articles. The NYT jabs at the NYC government with part of the subheader being “No governor. No mayor. But plenty of activism, food, dancing and fun…” which promptly dismisses the power the government thought they had over the state of the celebration and places the emphasis on the gleeful nature of the people, giving power to them. Fox News on the other hand uses the header to quickly shift attention from the celebration to the disgust at Bill de Blasio with ad hominem quotes, which shows their reluctance to talk about the day’s Indigenous Peoples’ Day festivities. Lastly, in the nuances of an article such as with crowd counts, there can be bias in how they are presented. This is seen clearly in Huffington Post where they use the phrase “at least 5 states and numerous cities and towns…” (Lawmakers introduce bipartisan resolution, Huffington Post). This brings a sense of triumph to the numbers, consequently shifting the way we see the numbers as a victory rather than as only 5 states out of 50 for example.

The arrangement of facts tells us about what the news article perhaps wanted the reader to get out of reading it. With the NPR, the use of a quote such as “Its about celebrating people instead of thinking about somebody who actually caused genocide on a population…” (Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples Day?, NPR) make it clear it’s pushing the stance in favor if Indigenous Peoples’ Day (IPD). The presented quotes in this text contains the opinion that helps sway my - as the reader’s - opinion. Also, the order of facts is talking about Indigenous Peoples’ Day then to Columbus day and what that means to the Italian Americans and then switches back to an argument for IPD through giving an argument against the claim for Columbus Day. This is done by separating the Italian American’s identity and saying that it’s a matter of correcting history. In addition, with the NYT, the use of quotes and order of information pushed the idea of a celebration of Indigenous Peoples’ instead of protesting Columbus day. They aren’t the same thing and the NYT orders the facts to show that. In fact, in the article, this very sentiment is expressed: “This isn’t a day about protesting Columbus, it’s about celebrating indigenous people.” (Indigenous Peoples’ Day: The Unofficial, Columbus-free celebration, New York Times). The divisive use of quotes is a very smooth way of adding opinion to a factual news piece in order to sway the readers a particular way, and the findings of my analysis suggests that left or right leaning media outlets such as the NYT, Huffington Post and Fox News use quotes for this reason more than more neutral ones such as the AP. They use the same rhetoric in these articles to simultaneously condemn Columbus and celebrate IPD. Furthermore, the selection of primary documents for the Huffington Post article perhaps serves as a victory cry for the battle for the recognition of the day which caters to their left leaning audience. With selection and omission, at a glance, it’s visible to see how Fox News’ article is shorter than Huffington Post’s or the NYT’s. This is because they chose to omit more of the day’s events and bring the focus to Bill de Blasio. Furthermore, one comes to the realization that it helps in encouraging the reader to click out since the article is so short and very superfluous in the information’s relevance - simply, it attempts to disinterest us. Contrarily, it’s clear to see upon comparison that the Huffington Post leaves out the symbolic meaning of Columbus Day for Italians and selects the quotes that depict Columbus as a murder and also uses language like “bipartisan” with regards to the resolution. They seem to want to praise the resolution as a solution that is beneficial to both parties as it highlights their moral dignity and focuses on their cooperation bringing forth the first step to legislation.

In addition, there is bias shown through the use of graphics to provide illustrative proof towards the argument that the article makes. The graphics support the content of the article and are catered towards the audience of the outlet. In the Associated Press, the candid photos of the dancers and events show a very cultural and traditional take on the day, conveying it for what it was without any filter. The candidness of the photos convey a more neutral take on the events as you will notice no one is looking at the photo; no one is putting on a show for the camera. This once again boils down to the audience, as for AP, the audience is the other news outlets and not us as readers so the pictures seem to align with the content and give a very impartial, rather summative view of the events. Conversely, the graphics in the NPR seem to hold a more liberal leaning, which aligns with the content and title of the article, which discusses the shift of states and cities towards Indigenous People’s Day. They frame the events as more a noble fight against Columbus through showing alternating pictures of the crowds with serious expressions and the imposing statue of Columbus made in cold stone.

Sourced from the NPR.

Their audience are people who are “distinguished by educational excellence and professional success” (NPR Audience Profile) so the articles are more serious and impartial in the way that they convey the news to appeal to them.

Also in a juxtaposition, the New York Times had graphics that portrayed the bright and fun times of the event, seemingly in efforts to encourage it’s liberal audience to not rely on municipalities to stand up for the moral rights but to instead make your own events and celebrations.

Sourced from the New York Times.

The photos of the colorful dancers, joyful families and presence of multiple races emphasizes the support that Indigenous people have in America and serves as a reminder that they are on their way to their goals. Once again, the graphics lean towards the content and moral of the article. The Huffington Post was an article focused on the resolution and thus lacked graphics, instead promoting a more factual and bipartisan view of the article. Lastly, with Fox News, the graphics showed waved Italian flags and the maniacal face of Bill de Blasio as he supported Columbus day and the citizens looking on with disgust. The evident disgust at his actions showed a more liberal and Indigenous peoples supporting view which matched with the other articles overall.

Sourced by Fox News

Sourced from Fox News.

This contrasted with the more conservative and right leaning audience of the news outlet, however this is an example of how American journalism generally doesn’t stoop below a moral line. To disapprove of Indigenous People’s Day may be a step too far and even reprehensible. However, it’s important to notice how short the article was in comparison, as if not spending as much on time on the article will equate to less coverage. The focus of this article was about Bill de Blasio walking in the Columbus Day Parade rather than about the Indigenous peoples and the graphics reflected that right-centrist view. The focus of this article causes readers to leave feeling angry at Bill de Blasio instead of being educated on IPD, which is what’s really important. It leaves the reader feeling frustrated about this topic and feeling like “some things never change”, when that’s the opposite of what’s happening. Interestingly, by focusing the article on one man’s actions, and omitting information, the article becomes an individual’s attack rather than a praise of a group which detracts from the power of the movement.

This all leads towards one of the main points of understanding from media bias that makes the implementation of bias understandable to some point. Media outlets have bias to cater to their audiences. The angle of truth that they spin is still viable truth and thus on very few occasions are recognized outlets damaging to public discourse.

The counterargument lies in the stance that some media is dangerous to public discourse, due to its bias. One could argue that this is why online media articles’ target age market is for teen and adult demographics. By that age, we have the sophistication to form opinions on the verity of articles and how much an article will inform our overall opinion. Rather than children who take information at face value. The deeper questions become at what age should online media articles be available to children? How and to what extent should we balance the societal need to stay updated about world events at an increasingly earlier age with the potential harm that can come from reading biased articles when the reader is not mature enough to process the information? Should there be a line that we don’t cross and is there one already? A moral line that media bias across American journalism doesn’t cross as to not damage public discourse is necessary and can be argued to either be or not be already in place.

In conclusion, it seems that if the reader was to read a single article on the event and believe it, they would come away from the article with slightly different ideas depending on the source that they read. This is because of the subtle angle the media spins. For example, from the NPR article, one would come away thinking that the battle is far from won as the graphics display a serious and rather somber situation though conversely, from the NYT article, one would come away thinking that the Indigenous People had ‘prevailed’ as they are celebrating and having fun, despite the government’s support. Analyzing articles along the media bias spectrum revealed that American journalism (more often written journalism than in oral news) won’t stoop below a moral line with regards to certain issues and as such, the bias employed by certain outlets is negligible and only present up to a point. One reason is simply because of the nature of the press: putting one’s professional reputation on a biased piece of permanent text is worse than over spoken media. This is also because American journalists understand that a violation of the metaphorical ‘moral line’ will be deemed unacceptable by their audiences no matter where they stand on the media bias spectrum. Simply, bias is inevitable in this issue because of the different audiences that the outlet cater for. The compounded understanding of how media outlets build their arguments, the fallacies they use to misconstrue the point as well as the techniques they employ to show subtle bias in their online articles all mean that the influence that a single article’s small bias has on our understanding of information will be diminished and we can more holistically process information presented to us online.

Works Cited:

Bendery, Jennifer. “House Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Resolution Recognizing 'Indigenous Peoples' Day'.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 14 Oct. 2019, www.huffpost.com/entry/indigenous-peoples-day-columbus-house-bipartisan-resolution_n_5da48f10e4b087efdbb266b8.

Contreras, Russell. “Some States Celebrate Indigenous People Instead of Columbus.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 15 Oct. 2019, www.apnews.com/32759d8251a14b22974c3fe00bfbd6e0.

Fadel, Leila. “Columbus Day Or Indigenous Peoples' Day?” NPR, NPR, 14 Oct. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/10/14/769083847/columbus-day-or-indigenous-peoples-day.

“Media Bias Chart.” AllSides, 15 Oct. 2019, www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart.

Miles, Frank. “Bill De Blasio Booed as 'Worst Mayor Ever' at NYC's Columbus Day Parade: 'Big Bird,' 'Laughingstock'.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 15 Oct. 2019, www.foxnews.com/media/bill-de-blasio-booed-worst-mayor-ever-nyc-columbus-day

“NPR Audience Profile.” NPR, cache.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000316/NPR%20Jazz%20Demographics.pdf.

Randle, Aaron. “Indigenous Peoples' Day: The Unofficial, Columbus-Free Celebration.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/nyregion/indigenous-day.html.