Media Bias

For this assignment, I used Google as my search engine to come across an article that tells about the IRS current tea party scandal and how Barrack Obama is not involved in it. The article was not clear, in my opinion, because it failed to give me a complete view of things or didn’t provide enough information on what exactly is going on. I had to look elsewhere to figure out what exactly this scandal is. However, the article was accurate because some of the facts where across multiple websites that encountered. The article is a mixture of opinion and fact. The article states that Obama did not have anything to do with this, but this is just an opinion because it has yet to be proven if he did or not. There were also plenty of facts that are being ignored, such as what exactly is the scandal and is the scandal true. I feel that an article that is defending the president should state and make it clear what exactly they are defending him from. There were no other prospective or worldviews in this story. It gave a single viewpoint, saying that Obama knew nothing about the scandal until it broke news. Throughout the article senior adviser, Dan Pfeiffer, is defending Obama and states how something like this is inexcusable and should not happen again. There’s questionable assumption that were presented in this story. For example, in the article it states the Sen. Rand Paul suggest that there was a written policy to target conservative groups opposing the president, but when asked and pressed about it he could not provide any details. Also, I am still under the assumption rather or not our president knew about what was going on. I feel that this article would be different on the television rather than reading an article online. By watching it on television I will get a better understanding of what exactly is going on because they are more likely to emphasize it a little more. I think the best source to hear an article like this is in on television because maybe the media...