Bias in the media at work
Maybe it's because the subject matter is ancient history (literally), but these two articles I read today demonstrate the ways in which a particular news source colors the news you get.
For instance, take Article #1, from Nature. Let's start with the headline and brief description of the article.
Now, we look at Article #2, from my favorite comedic website, CNN. Again, we'll start with the headline and short description of the article.
Honestly, I think we need look no further. "Terror?" "Terrorized?" The creature was "probably 12 feet long," and honestly, in the scheme of 135 million years ago, that wasn't that big. I know that Nature and CNN have two distinct functions in reporting different types of news. However, CNN has unnecessarily sensationalized this particular story. The article at Nature isn't even overly scientific. It's clear and interesting, even to laymen, especially if you have an interest in dinosaurs (and let's face it, who as a child didn't go through a dinosaur loving phase?). You don't have to be a scientist to understand and enjoy it. On the other hand, CNN assumes that you'd have to be an idiot to understand or enjoy their take on the story.
For instance, take Article #1, from Nature. Let's start with the headline and brief description of the article.
Short-snouted snapper surprises fossil hunters: This unusual looking crocodile would have had a hard time catching fish.
Now, we look at Article #2, from my favorite comedic website, CNN. Again, we'll start with the headline and short description of the article.
Scientists reveal prehistoric terror: (CNN) -- Scientists say they have discovered the intact fossilized skull of a marine crocodile with a dinosaur-like head and a fish-like tail that likely terrorized the Pacific Ocean 135 million years ago.
Honestly, I think we need look no further. "Terror?" "Terrorized?" The creature was "probably 12 feet long," and honestly, in the scheme of 135 million years ago, that wasn't that big. I know that Nature and CNN have two distinct functions in reporting different types of news. However, CNN has unnecessarily sensationalized this particular story. The article at Nature isn't even overly scientific. It's clear and interesting, even to laymen, especially if you have an interest in dinosaurs (and let's face it, who as a child didn't go through a dinosaur loving phase?). You don't have to be a scientist to understand and enjoy it. On the other hand, CNN assumes that you'd have to be an idiot to understand or enjoy their take on the story.
<< Home