How Media shapes Carly Fiorina
We're getting political
Just this past Monday, Carly Fiorina announced her candidacy for the Republican nomination for presidency. Is this good news or bad news? We'll that a loaded question.
Let's see what three different sources have to say...
Written by MJ Lee, on Tuesday, May 5th on CNN.com
It'd be important to know that Fiorina has no political background, as well as how the process of electing a president is followed. It is also important to know the distinction between Republicans and Democrats.
This article was written for anyone interested in the potential candidates for the leadership of the free world. It is written from a fairly unbiased standpoint.
This source was made because many people would like to know who will be in charge of the free world, especially those in the free world.
The purpose of this article was to show Fiorina's intentions for this country and that she has a good shot at leading it.
This source acts as an unbiased middle ground in between the chaos that are the literal thousands of Republican and Democratic bias.
NY Post's say
Written by Marisa Schultz on Monday, May 4th on NYpost.com/news
It's important to know that Carly Fiorina is the first woman to run for the Republican party for presidency. Also, it should be noted that the New York Post is a very conservative source, many of it's beliefs are associated with the Republican party.
This source was created for very conservative Republicans, seeing that it comes across as biased.
For the same reason as CNN, this source was created to inform. However, the Post also has an element of positivity to their article.
The article was written to convince the reader that Carly Fiorina is the right choice for president and we should be excited to vote for her.
This source is important because it expresses Fiorina in a whole new outstanding light.
NY Times' belief
Written by Jonathan Martin on Monday, May 4th on TheNYTimes.com
It's important to know that Hillary Clinton is also running for office in 2016.
This article was written for liberal Democrats, so it too comes across as biased.
This source, like the ones above, was made to inform about Fiorina's intentions for the presidency. It also, however, was written to make Fiorina seem like a worse candidate for office.
The purpose of this article was to convince the reader that Carly shouldn't be president.
The article is important because it shows the vast contradictions between the beliefs of the different sources.
Why'd I choose this and how'd I react
My reasoning for choosing this topic was a simple one: the war between conservative and liberal views will never ever ever EVER die. Therefore, I was certain there'd be a lot of sources that had very different points of view. I was amazed at the differences in opinion though. Some websites saw Fiorina as a positive savior for our country, whereas others were appalled that she decided to run for office. Overall, it was a pretty staggering distinction.