Bias in the News

In the current day, it is crucial to be able to recognize bias in the media, regardless of whether or not that bias aligns with your own personal beliefs. Today, I will be discussing bias through an investigation of "Asked about climate change, Trump says 'lot of factors' to blame for California wildfires" by CNN politics reporter Sophie Tatum.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to call into question President Trump’s stance on the recent, devastating California wildfires.

Devices:

Pathos to evoke anger/resentment toward Trump:

Tatum makes an appeal to the tragic situation, stating that the fire was “the deadliest and most destructive in California’s history” and that “more than 70 people have died and more than 1,000 people remain missing.” By stating that the event was a historical first, Tatum emphasizes its seriousness and significance. She stresses the horrifically large quantity of deaths and missing people in order to distress the reader and make them sympathize with the Californians. By juxtaposing the tragic and serious nature of the situation with non-specific quotes from Trump that seem to trivialize rather than provide solutions to the fires ("Hopefully this is going to be the last one of these"), Tatum uses this emotional response to evoke resentment against Trump's stance on the wildfires.

Connotative diction:

Tatum states that the president recommended more forest floor upkeep “Without explaining himself”. By indicating that this claim needed more justification or explanation, Tatum suggests that President Trump’s point was too vague and did not logically correlate to the issue. Furthermore, Tatum's point is stated with the implicit presumption that Trump’s view that the forest fires were due to poor forest management was incorrect and irrelevant to the situation.

Selective quotes used against Trump:

In the title of the article and throughout its content, Tatum uses a quote from President Trump stating that the wildfires were caused by “a lot of factors.” This is used to strengthen her argument that Trump is not addressing the wildfires with an appropriate level of seriousness. She also quotes him saying “I want a great climate," and “We're going to have safe forests, and that's happening as we speak.” These quotes capture only the broadest feedback given by the president, which serves to support Tatum's argument that Trump's responses to the situation are non-specific and unhelpful. She chooses to focus on these quotes to the exclusion of specifics on his ideas about avoiding future economic losses through forest upkeep (see “President Trump arrives in California to survey wildfire damage after hammering 'poor' forest management” for an entirely different perspective).

Bias through sources:

Tatum demonstrates a liberal bias by only using quotes from sources that attempt to discredit Trump. Apart from her direct quotes from Trump, her only quote is from Brian K. Rice, president of the California Professional Firefighters. Rice states: “attacking California and threatening to withhold aid to the victims of the cataclysmic fires is ill-informed, ill-timed and demeaning to those who are suffering as well as the men and women on the front lines." This extreme position attacks Trump's view as poorly formulated and inappropriate to the situation, supporting Rice's views. This causes the reader to discredit Trump's response to the situation without necessarily having considered all of its points, but supports Tatum's purpose of questioning Trump's position. Quotes from sources with different perspectives are not included to provide additional perspectives.

Bias through statistics:

Tatum states that the fires were “considered the deadliest and most destructive in California's history. Since the wildfires began, more than 70 people have died and more than 1,000 people remain missing.” In order to set up a contrast to President Trump’s trivialization of the wildfires, she sets up the fires as the first of their kind in history. Rather than focusing on housing and monetary losses (in which President Trump’s points on the economic benefits of improving forest upkeep may have weakened her arguments), she focuses on the loss of lives in an attempt to stir up an emotional rather than a practical public response to the fires. This supports Tatum's purpose because it causes people to question the morality of Trump's position.

Bias by omission:

While the article has no trouble detailing how Trump attacked forest management (and the retaliation of the fire department), it neglects to mention how he praised the firefighters for their work (see “President Trump arrives in California to survey wildfire damage after hammering 'poor' forest management”). While she acknowledges Trump’s statement about how more action should be taken to prevent fires through forest management, she neglects his statements on how he had personally witnessed the incredibly dry and under-cared for state of the forests. She also neglected his significant points on the monetary advantages of forest upkeep in comparison to the enormous losses of the fires. In fact, she avoids the monetary impact of the wildfires completely. While her omission serves to support her position by leaving out the possible benefits of Trump's perspective, it also deceives the reader by suggesting that Trump's view has no possible benefits.

Bias of the source:

Especially in light of the current administration, CNN has been increasingly associated with the liberal left and has published many anti-Trump stories, and is thus likely opposed to Trump’s opinions on the wildfires.