http://boortz.com/images/funny/052504_what_media_bias.gif
Analysis of Potential Bias
1) Bias through Selection and Omission;
This article has a limited amount of data, and all of it is from one source. The data shows only the findings of a potentially bias scientist that prove the point wanted by FOX news. The supporting articles have two different views on mankind's influence on Global Climate Change. The first is from ABC, a fairly neutral news site, and the other from the same cite and author. In the author's second story he uses only the same data again, and omits the opposing side's data.
2) Bias through Placement;
The article was placed in a fairly easy to see area on google when one searches "Global Warming". It didn't get placed unfairly on fox's site, but could still be discovered easily.
3) Bias by Headline;
The headline, "Scientist Disputes EPA Findings That Carbon Dioxide Poses Threat to Humans," is not at all bias, but simply informative.
4)Bias by Photos, Captions, and Camera Angles;
The article I analyzed was not bias in photos or captions, nor in camera angles. It just presented common knowledge without any moral twists.
5)Bias through Use of Names And Titles;
The article was only a little bias with titles, giving the scientist mentioned a prestigious title that sounded a little bogus, and giving him many connections to famous institutes.
6) Bias through Statistics an Crowd Counts;
The article is extremely bias with statistics, presenting only those collected by the single scientist and those by other bias organizations. No mention was given to the statistics of how much pure Carbon Dioxide is released into the environment a year. That alone would be bad for the entire climate of the earth not just humans.
7) Bias by Source Control;
The quotes are evenly distributed between the EPA, the scientist, and other reliable un-bias sources.
8) Bias by Word Choice and Tone;
The article is very bias with tone. It clearly wants to show the world that we do not contribute to global warming, and we can go on living as we are. My guess would be that the author is funded by major corporations that will be harmed if CO2 emissions are regulated. This quote shows it clearly, "Carbon dioxide is hazardous to your health, the Environmental Protection Agency says. Oh really?"
