Nicollegarc.weebly.com



Nicolle Garcia12/2/15Prof. McCarthyNews LiteracyFinal Essay-Final Draft -1,492 words As November begins and the end of 2015 quickly approaches, the upcoming presidential elections of 2016 have gained the media’s full and undivided attention. Various platforms across the board have gone about news coverage towards each candidate in different ways, some presenting them in a partisan manner, while others have attempted to present the facts with reliable sources, verification, independence and accountability, as Kovach and Rosenstiel write, “Journalist must maintain independence from those they cover”(Kovach, 142). The current political climate coupled with the pressing, controversial existence of the Benghazi Panel in Washington, print, online, radio, opinion journalism and social media reports support the idea that the panel must be disbanded at once, as numerous sources, evidence and journalistic investigating has demonstrated. The process of forming an opinion takes place over a period of time in order to follow the story as new facts appear. The New York Times article, "Clinton Emails Became the New Focus of Benghazi Inquiry" presents not one, but two, named, authoritative and informed sources: Bradley F. Podliska and Kevin McCarthy, who provide evidence the panel should be disbanded. Their accounts suggest the panel’s clear shift from the investigation on the attack in Benghazi to Hillary Clinton’s image as a presidential candidate. Kevin McCarthy, former candidate for Speaker of House and a Republican, was directly quoted saying "...we put together a Benghazi committee, a select committee. What are her numbers now?” McCarthy was referring to Clinton’s declining poll numbers at the time, which he infers is the panel’s primary goal currently. Another named source was Richard Hanna, House Republican, who was cited on NPR's segment "Democrats Accuse Benghazi Committee of Political Intentions". He was directly quoted saying that the panel was "designed to go after people, and an individual, Clinton.” All three named and reputable sources, in positions of authority, verify the notion that the committee clearly had ulterior motives. The presence of direct quotes are important, allowing further confirmation for the sources point of view. Hanna and McCarthy are especially credible sources because they represent the Republican Party, making their public acknowledgement of the panel’s motives even more controversial and credible. In many ways, their direct quotes place the New York Times and NPR’s reporting into greater context. It allows an opinion to be formed outside of the reporter’s own POV, seeing things from the eyes of individuals who were personally involved with the panel. They publicly stated that Clinton's reputation was the driving force for the committee and the New York Times and NPR present that through multiple, named and verified sources. The sources mentioned above, McCarthy, Podliska and Hanna are all crucial in establishing an opinion through the direct evidence they provide, as in the case of Slate's article "Here's what the Benghazi Committee is fighting about now" where they address verified information. Like the New York Times, the article takes the position that the panel is simply wasting away and focusing on Clinton as public enemy number one. The reporting is supported by a document: a direct piece of evidence, provided by the date of the emails that were sent by Clinton over a year before the Benghazi attacks took place. This evidence completely refutes the idea that the emails were a threat to national security, one of the committee’s accusations, and how they may have played a part in the fatal attack at the embassy. It also confirms the committee’s inability to fact check its information, which Democrat Elijah Cummings stated. Although he could be viewed as a self-interested source, Cummings accusation that the panel provided inaccurate information is corroborated by these emails. More direct evidence can be seen by the televised testimony itself. As Slate reports the televised event took place in the heat of the presidential primaries, even though the investigations began 17 months ago and seven previous Congressional committees have revealed no new evidence. The hearings were used in a calculated manner to negatively impact Clinton’s campaign and the direct evidence confirming that is her public testimony. Additionally, the committee and the participants forming it have been struck by delayed action and dysfunction according to the New York Times. It reports that certain documents and interviews, direct evidence, show 4.5 million dollars has been spent without any substantial findings. They also report on Bradley Podliska, an Air Force Reserve officer and former Republican employee, who claimed the formation of a "gun-buying club" and "Wine Wednesday's ". An editorial from The Washington Post: “The GOP’s Unfortunate Benghazi Hearing” confirms the accusations as well. True to its image, as Halberstam writes: “they hit the big stories while they were big” (Halberstam, 1). The Washington Post editorial board accuses the panel of “largely insubstantial suspicions” further supporting the disbanding of the House Benghazi Panel. The direct evidence used to verify reports was also from the hearing itself. The article mentions the Republican’s inability to ask Clinton questions that would lead to any new information or present validity to their inquiry. The article goes on to discredit the panel, and through the Washington Post’s editorial board, establishes an opinion that it must be disbanded. However critical the article is on the panel, it does place some blame on Clinton as well and provides direct quotes from her, establishing fairness by not only criticizing the panel but also Clinton. The editorial being a source of opinion journalism does not take away from its credibility, even if it is taking a stance on the issue. Opinion journalism has to be crafted with factual evidence, not assertion or personal beliefs. In doing so The Washington Post is able to function independently and fairly, fulfilling a fundamental part of its’ journalistic duty. The Washington Post, New York Times and NPR are among the most highly regarded news platforms in the country. Just as there are dependable news outlets, there are also ones that appear not to be credible and should not be used to form an informed opinion. On an editorial was written regarding the panel: “Benghazi Panel: It’s Finished”. While the article attempts to confirm the panel’s shady intentions, the way the information is presented makes it unreliable. It has numerous personal attacks towards Kevin McCarthy, showing that there are clear and present personal feelings. Also all of the reporting appears to be done in first person, not allowing the reader to understand the subject from a different perspective or receive any type of evidence or statements from sources outside of McCarthy’s single quote. Additionally, there is no sense of transparency and at the end of the article the reader is left with no sources, no concrete evidence and no verification on what was written. Another interesting perspective on the topic is provided through Buzzfeed’s article “Former Benghazi Committee Investigator Says Panel Is Out to Get Hillary Clinton”. Referring to the many things learned in class throughout the semester, it is important as a news consumer to have a varied media diet, and that includes social media. Buzzfeed emphasizes their main source, Major Bradley Podliska, who as previous paragraphs stated, accused the panel of going after Clinton’s reputation. The reporting mostly represents Bradley’s version of the story, with only one comment mentioned on behalf of the committee from an unnamed spokesperson, providing indirect evidence and an unnamed source. They do go on to site Podliska’s public declarations through CNN and the New York Times, both credible and dependable sources. Unlike many of the articles that addressed the panel and its intentions, Buzzfeed chooses to focus more on Podliska’s accusation that the committee is targeting him and trying to tarnish his credibility, instead of the larger issue. Due to the one-sided approach taken by the reporter, David Mack, and lack of multiple sources, this article can be used as a point of reference when forming an informed opinion on the committee, but should not be the only source a news literate consumer should use. It appears to support the points made by the New York Times, Slate and the Washington Post, highlighting the positive aspect of social media: its ability to provide further insight, after gathering evidence from a verified outlet, named, multiple sources and versatile points of view. When considering how important it is to have valid, educated, opinions, Anderson Cooper best sums it up in his book “Dispatches from the Edge”: “You only learn from what you don’t want to look at”(Anderson, 212). As a news consumer it is crucial to analyze different points of view and seek out outlets that challenge a person’s beliefs. Not only does the journalist have to open the freezer, so does the consumer. The importance of what the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR best demonstrate in their reporting is legitimate sources and substantial evidence as well as genuine balance and fairness by attempting to represent both sides of the story. The manner in which they do their reporting fulfills their obligation to be independent and verified without having attacks or assertions. It is important for the reporter to immerse himself or herself as deeply as they can into their reporting, especially when covering an issue that can affect the nation’s political future. It is as important for readers to be just as active in their opinion making as journalists are in their reporting. How to Watch TV News, by Neil Postman and Steve Powers, deconstructs the law-like definition of news, it is what it is, or as they write: “we might say news is what news directors and journalists say it is”(Postman, Powers, 12). Once again, while the role of directors and journalists is to report the news, it is in the hands of the news consumers to perceive themselves what they consider to be news, and what affects their lives on a small and large scale. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download