Day 1- Roger Simon and Media Bias:
Students will need a class set of Roger Simon and Media Bias , and “Types of Media Bias” and their own paper to write on, label their paper “Media Bias” with their Name, Date, and Mod at the top. Have students popcorn read and summarize (out loud) each paragraph about “Types of Media Bias”. After each paragraph is read out loud, students will write down a one sentence summary for each type of
Media Bias on their own paper. Next have students popcorn read from Roger Simon and Media Bias. and answer the two questions on the article. 1. Define heterodox.2. Do you agree with Mr. Goldberg’s statement? Explain your answer.
Day 2-“
:
Students can work with a partner reading the article. Each student will need to have their own paper titled,
“Readers Remember Misleading Headlines”,
Name, Date, and Mod. They will need to read the article and answer the three questions on the article: What responsibility do you think publishers/editors have to provide accurate headlines that are not misleading? What responsibility do you as a part of the TV Production Crew at Southwest Middle School do you have to ensure information that is not misleading? Having read this post, what responsibility do you think you as the reader now have to read the news with judgement? Students can share their answers with the class and their opinions on the subject. From there they can continue with the example of the biased headline and share their opinions on biased headlines (Do they think it is fair? Do they feel tricked?).
Day 3-“George Stephanopoulos: Objective Journalist”
Students will read “ George Stephanopoulos: Objective Journalist” and answer the three questions from the article on their own paper which they will title “ George Stephanopoulos: Objective Journalist” Name,
Date, and Mod. Questions; ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos interviewed the author of a book critical of
Bill and Hillary Clinton. What type of bias did Mr. Stephanopoulos display by not disclosing his $75,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation? 2. Stephanopoulos in his apology said, “However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the [Clinton] Foundation.” As a journalist, should he have known to do so? Explain your answer. Lloyd Grove of The Daily Beast asks, “Could Stephanopoulos, who is also ABC
News’s chief anchor and political correspondent, be hoping for access to and exclusives from Bill and
Hillary, giving him a competitive edge during the 2016 presidential campaign?” Is this a legitimate question? Explain your answer.
Day 4- “Celebrities above Media Scrutiny”
Students will read “Celebrities above Media Scrutiny “and answer the three questions from the article on their own paper which they will title
“Celebrities above Media Scrutiny”
Name, Date, and Mod.
Questions; Do you think this report is an example of media bias? If so, what type? If not, why not? Why do you think the media does not point out the hypocrisy of environmentalist celebrities who do not practice what they preach? If time permits, discuss answers.
1

Day 5- “Liberal vs Conservative Beliefs”
Students will read
“Liberal vs Conservative Beliefs”
“and will need their own paper which they will title
“Liberal vs Conservative Beliefs”
Name, Date, and Mod. Students will create a Venn Diagram, labeling the left side Liberal and the right side Conservative. Students will read each view on each topic and decide which side they lean towards. Whichever side they lean towards the MOST they will right the title of that topic on that side, if they are in between (if they REALLY CANNOT DECIDE) they will put that topic in the middle of the venn diagram. Students will determine if they lean to the left, right, or somewhere in the middle.
Example:
2

(DAY 1)
Since citizens cannot cast informed votes or make knowledgeable decisions on matters of public policy if the information on which they depend is distorted, it is vital to American democracy that television news and other media be fair and unbiased. In a recent Gallup Poll, the majority of Americans believe that the mass media slant reports in favor of the liberal position on current issues.
[The bias] is not the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy – [there is] an unconscious
“groupthink” mentality that taints news coverage and allows only one side of a debate to receive a fair hearing. When that happens, the truth suffers. A reporter’s job is to present a balanced story. As you read, listen to and watch the news, you may notice stories that you think are biased. To see if they really are biased, you need to determine if the story falls into at least one of the several forms in which bias occurs.
TYPES OF MEDIA BIAS:
Bias by omission – leaving one side out of an article, or a series of articles over a period of time; ignoring facts that tend to disprove liberal or conservative claims, or that support liberal or conservative beliefs; bias by omission can occur either within a story, or over the long term as a particular news outlet reports one set of events, but not another. To find instances of bias by omission, be aware of the conservative and liberal perspectives on current issues. See if both the conservative and liberal perspectives are included in stories on a particular event or policy.
Bias by selection of sources – including more sources that support one view over another. This bias can also be seen when a reporter uses such phrases as “experts believe,” “observers say,” or
“most people believe.” Experts in news stories are like expert witnesses in trials. If you know whether the defense or the prosecution called a particular expert witness to the stand, you know which way the witness will testify. And when a news story only presents one side, it is obviously the side the reporter supports. (Journalists often go looking for quotes to fit their favorite argument into a news story.) To find bias by use of experts or sources, stay alert to the affiliations and political perspective of those quoted as experts or authorities in news stories.
Not all stories will include experts, but in those that do, make sure about an equal number of conservatives and liberals are quoted. If a story quotes non-experts, such as those portrayed as average citizens, check to be sure that about an equal number come from both sides of the issue in question.
Bias by story selection – a pattern of highlighting news stories that coincide with the agenda of either the Left or the Right, while ignoring stories that coincide with the opposing view; printing a story or study released by a liberal or conservative group but ignoring studies on the same or similar topics released by the opposing group. To identify bias by story selection you’ll need to know the conservative and liberal sides of the issue. See how much coverage conservative issues get compared to issues on the liberal agenda, or liberals compared to conservatives. For example, if a liberal group puts out a study proving a liberal point, look at how much coverage it
3

got compared to a conservative study issued a few days or weeks earlier, or vice versa. If charges of impropriety are leveled at two politicians of approximately equal power, one liberal and one conservative, compare the amount of coverage given to each.
Bias by placement – Story placement is a measure of how important the editor considers the story. Studies have shown that, in the case of the average newspaper reader and the average news story, most people read only the headline. Bias by placement is where on a website (or newspaper) or in an article a story or event is printed; a pattern of placing news stories so as to downplay information supportive of either conservative views or liberal views. To locate examples of bias by placement, observe where a media outlet places political stories. Or whenever you read a story, see how far into the story each viewpoint first appears. In a fair and balanced story, the reporter would quote or summarize the liberal and conservative view at about the same place in the story. If not, you’ve found bias by placement.
Bias by labeling – Bias by labeling comes in two forms. The first is the tagging of conservative politicians and groups with extreme labels while leaving liberal politicians and groups unlabeled or with more mild labels, or vice versa. The second kind of bias by labeling occurs when a reporter not only fails to identify a liberal as a liberal or a conservative as a conservative, but describes the person or group with positive labels, such as “an expert” or “independent consumer group.” In so doing, the reporter imparts an air of authority that the source does not deserve. If the “expert” is properly called a “conservative” or a “liberal” the news consumer can take that ideological slant into account when evaluating the accuracy of an assertion. When looking for bias by labeling, remember that not all labeling is biased or wrong. Bias by labeling is present when the story labels the liberal but not the conservative, or the conservative but not the liberal; when the story uses more extreme sounding labels for the conservative than the liberal (“ultra-conservative”, “far right”, but just “liberal” instead of “far left” and “ultraliberal”) or for the liberal than the conservative (“ultra-liberal”, “far left”, but just
“conservative” instead of “far right” and “ultra-conservative ; and when the story misleadingly identifies a liberal or conservative official or group as just an expert or independent watchdog organization.
Bias by spin – Bias by spin occurs when the story has only one interpretation of an event or policy, to the exclusion of the other; spin involves tone – it’s a reporter’s subjective comments about objective facts; makes one side’s ideological perspective look better than another. To check if it’s spin, observe which interpretation of an event or policy a news story matches – the liberal or conservative. Many news stories do not reflect a particular spin. Others summarize the spin put on an event by both sides. But if a story reflects one to the exclusion of the other, then you’ve found bias by spin.
The above information is excerpted and adapted from How to Identify Liberal Media Bias by Brent H. Baker, Vice President for Research and Publications at Media Research Center. To accurately identify different types of bias, you should be aware of the issues of the day, and the liberal and conservative perspectives on each issue. (See our chart “Conservative vs. Liberal
Beliefs”)
4

(DAY 1)
From a post by National Review editor Jonah Goldberg (original post date Oct. 14):
Over at Politico, Roger Simon has written an… “analysis,” which leads off with what he calls a joke about how America would be better off if [Republicans] John Boehner and Ted Cruz drowned. It goes on with the usual clichéd drek about the [government] shutdown being racist and so on. No doubt many liberals think it’s right on target. But that’s not what interests me. Simon’s column reminds me of a point
I’ve been making for years. Most mainstream journalists roll their eyes at the idea the MSM
[mainstream media] is biased. It’s a tired argument, I know. But it’s simply remarkable that when supposedly objective reporters move on to the opinion column racket they reveal themselves as…liberal
Democrats. When any longtime New York Times reporter [is given] a column at the Times or elsewhere…it turns out that they were exactly as liberal as conservatives suspected. It’s like that
Saturday Night Live skit where Obama takes off his Obama mask to reveal that he’s Barack Obama.
Just going by the law of averages, some of these reporters should turn out to be conservative or libertarian or at least ideologically heterodox. But it almost never happens. Indeed, when the Times needs to find a conservative columnist (Bill Safire, David Brooks, Ross Douthat) it always has to hire outside its own shop.
[Time magazine’s] Jay Carney got his job working for Joe Biden, and later, Barack Obama because his employers knew from the get-go that the Time reporter was ideologically simpatico with the administration. The same goes for Linda Douglas, not to mention Richard Stengel, Shailagh Murray, and many others. I wonder if any of them ever feel insulted when Democratic politicians just assume that supposedly objective reporters would make great partisan hacks*? [*Someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is factually true.]
Sometimes the revolving door goes the other way. Tim Russert was, I’ll grant, more of a straight shooter than David Gregory is (which kind of proves my point), but he was simply plucked from the Democratic machinery, as was George Stephanopoulos (who’s done a better job than most in making the switch with intellectual integrity). Sure, there have been a handful of straight reporters who’ve gone Republican, but their numbers are so tiny their examples serves as the exceptions that prove the rule.
So here’s Roger Simon, who made his name as a straight reporter at all the right outlets and it turns out that his worldview all along was exactly what the conservative media critics would have expected.
There’s no crime here. Some of his work back then was legitimately very good and some of his columns as a liberal pundit are quite good as well (though today’s column is a mess). And one can even applaud the effort some of these people exerted to cover their real views when they were supposed to be objective. But from the conservative perspective it was a lot of wasted effort, because they didn’t fool anybody – except maybe the journalists themselves.
5

(DAY 2)
Example of Media Bias: from a post by TJ Anderson at Content Customs:
…A new study shows that headlines can have more of an effect on a reader’s interpretation of an article than the text in the article itself – even if the whole article is read. Everybody’s familiar with tabloidstyle headlines that are clearly exaggerations or fabrications. Misleading headlines in supermarket tabloids and gossip magazines are to be expected. But what happens when the line between tabloid and hard news starts to blur?
What happens when one of the most well-known, supposedly unbiased news outlets is just as misleading
[as the tabloids]? Check out this CNN article from September 2014 titled:
“Ebola in the air? A nightmare that could happen.”
This headline is definitely going to get some clicks (“ebola” was the top search term in 2014), but the experts interviewed for the story claimed that the chances of ebola mutating to spread through the air are actually very small. The headline could just as easily have been:
“Ebola in the air? Experts say it’s unlikely.”
The Australian study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, gave participants four articles to read – two factual pieces and two opinion pieces, all of which were 400 words or less.
The articles also presented different slants in their headlines. For example, one of the factual pieces concerned burglary rates, which had decreased by 10 percent in the past decade but showed a 0.2 percent rise in the last year. Readers read two articles on this topic, one titled:
“Number of Burglaries Going Up” and one called “Downward Trend in Burglary Rate”
When the study participants faced a surprise quiz after reading the articles, they were better at recalling information that was congruous [compatible; matched] with the headline. In other words, readers could remember more details about the declining trend in the article titled
“Downward Trend…” while also having better retention of the 0.2 percent increase in the article titled
“Number of Burglaries Going Up.”
The headlines told readers what to focus on, and those are exactly the details they retained. On the other hand, most readers were able to infer that the burglary rate would decrease next year regardless of article headlines. …
The main problem here is that publishers are posting articles with…headlines that…end up actually leaving readers with skewed versions of the truth. This happens even if the whole article is read. Thus, the study suggests that content creators are doing a serious disservice to their readers by using headlines such as these. The question is this: if publishers and article writers know that readers retain information from the headline more than anything else in the article, don’t they have a responsibility to avoid headlines that bend the truth? …
1) What responsibility do you think publishers/editors have to provide accurate headlines that are not misleading?
2) What responsibility do you as a part of the TV Production Crew at Southwest Middle School do you have to ensure information that is not misleading? 6
3) Having read this post, what responsibility do you think you as the reader now have to read the news with judgement?

(Day 2 Continued) For another example of a biased headline read the post below by Andrew
Kirell on 10/23/14 at mediate.com: The Associated Press has found itself in hot water for a pair of incredibly misleading headlines about a deadly Jerusalem light rail attack allegedly carried out by a member of Hamas.
For those unfamiliar with the October attack: A three-month-old girl was killed, and eight others were injured, when a car plowed through the afternoon crowd at an east Jerusalem light rail station. The suspect attempted to flee the scene but was gunned down by Israeli police. Officials have identified the man as part of Hamas, and have claimed this was a terror attack.
Here’s the headline that accompanied the AP’s original reporting of the story:
Regardless of your feelings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s easy to see how this headline is egregiously deceptive, especially coming from a respected institution like the Associated Press. As you can see in the screengrab, the article itself identifies the attack as suspected terrorism. Perhaps a more responsible headline — even at the time when news was still breaking and details were scant — would have been something along the lines of: “9 injured in suspected terror attack at Jerusalem train station” or, even more plainly spoken, “9 injured in suspected attack on Jerusalem train station.”
An hour later, the AP updated its headline: “Car slams into east Jerusalem train station.” Not much better seeing as it bizarrely and passively paints the car as the aggressor. The BBC apparently went with this style of headline, too: “Car hits people at Jerusalem station” (they eventually settled on “Jerusalem car ‘attack’ kills baby at rail station”).
Eventually the AP settled on its current, more factually blunt headline: “Palestinian kills baby at
Jerusalem station.” But was it really that difficult to come up with a truthful headline that didn’t downplay the story’s tragic nature and the potential for it having been an intentional attack?
UPDATE — 12:30 p.m. ET same day: The Associated Press provided comment on the matter: The headline in question was short-lived, written when confirmed details of what happened were scarce. The headline was replaced in just over a half-hour as AP continued to publish updates about the incident, the driver and the victim. The final version of the story, and its headline, made clear what had happened.
7

(DAY 3) George Stephanopoulos: Objective
Journalist Excerpted from a May 18 article by Roger
Aronoff, Accuracy in Media:
ABC News journalist (and former Clinton advisor) George Stephanopoulos interviewed “Clinton
Cash” author Peter Schweizer on his show on April 26. But the ABC host, formerly a Senior Advisor on
Policy and Strategy for President Bill Clinton, treated his broadcast as more of an interrogation than an interview in an effort to discredit Schweizer and defend, in turn, the Clintons. A real interview would have endeavored to understand Schweizer’s critique of the Clintons, not demand to see a “smoking gun” or
“evidence” of a crime.
Stephanopoulos’s conflict of interest was revealed by The Washington Free Beacon, which…contacted ABC
News about Stephanopoulos’s donations to the Clinton Foundation.
ABC’s spokeswoman, Heather Riley, said that they would respond, but then turned first to a friendly ally –
Politico – to spin the story favorably for the network and its golden boy.
“I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record,” said Stephanopoulos in his apology.
“However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the [Clinton] Foundation.”
ABC News initially incorrectly stated that he had given only $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation (an amount he later amended to $75,000) over three years.
But there’s more…
The Washington Free Beacon’s Andrew Stiles reported that ABC’s Riley “worked in the White House press office from 1997 to 2000,” including serving “as a press contact for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.”
But beyond that, Schweizer followed up on the week’s revelations, and found that Stephanopoulos’s ties with the Clinton Foundation were much closer than just cutting checks to the foundation. Schweizer called it
“the sort of ‘hidden hand journalism’ that has contributed to America’s news media’s crisis of credibility in particular, and Americans’ distrust of the news media more broadly.”
He pointed out that Stephanopoulos:
“did not disclose that in 2006 he was a featured attendee and panel moderator at the annual meeting of the
Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).”
Nor did he “disclose that in 2007, he was a featured attendee at the CGI annual meeting, a gathering also attended by several individuals I report on in [my book] “Clinton Cash,” including mega Clinton Foundation donors Lucas Lundin, Frank Giustra, Frank Holmes, and Carlos Slim – individuals whose involvement with the Clintons I assumed he had invited me on his program to discuss.”…
8

Stephanopoulos inadvertently (not on purpose; not intentionally) revealed in another setting [why people who make donations like his to the Clinton Foundation do so]. On the Jon Stewart show April 28,
Stephanopoulos said:
“But everybody also knows when those donors give that money – and President Clinton or someone, they get a picture with him – there’s a hope that it’s going to lead to something. And that’s what you have to be careful of. Even if you don’t get an action [the politician like Clinton to do something for you], what you get is access [to him/her] and you get the influence that comes with access [to the powerful politician like
Clinton] and that’s got to shape the thinking of politicians. That’s what’s so pernicious* about it.”
[*pernicious: causing great harm or damage often in a way that is not easily seen or noticed]
“Could Stephanopoulos, who is also ABC News’s chief anchor and political correspondent, be hoping for access to and exclusives from Bill and Hillary, giving him a competitive edge during the 2016 presidential campaign?” asks Lloyd Grove for The Daily Beast.
On the May 15 broadcast of Good Morning America Stephanopoulos “apologized” again – while patting himself on the back for supporting children, the environment, and efforts to stop the spread of AIDS. “Those donations were a matter of public record, but I should have made additional disclosures on air when I covered the foundation, and I now believe that directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake,” he said. “Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children, and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.”
The extra mile?
This is, basically, the same argument the Clintons and their Foundation have put forth to explain their conflicts of interest or “errors,” after having taken millions of dollars from companies and countries that had business with the U.S. government while Mrs. Clinton served as Secretary of State. Their failure to disclose many of these donations resulted in them refiling their tax returns for five years, once the obvious conflicts of interest came to light.
In reality the Clinton Foundation gives about 10% of what it collects to direct charitable grants, according to a study… “It looks like the Foundation – which once did a large amount of direct charitable work – now exists mainly to fund salaries, travel, and conferences,” writes David French. The study pointed out that
“Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.” In other words, less than $10,000 of the money that Stephanopoulos paid as tribute to the
Clintons went to the causes he claims to care about.
Stephanopoulos has removed himself from the ABC-sponsored Republican presidential primary debate next
February. Yet he simultaneously claimed, “I think I’ve shown that I can moderate debates fairly.” His decision to not participate ignores the bigger picture.
…It’s not just ABC’s Sunday show [that has a journalist affiliated with the Democratic party], but the two other main broadcast networks that also feature highly partisan Democrats as hosts:
NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd “served as a staffer on Democratic Senator Tom Harkin’s 1992 presidential bid,” according to Politico.
9

John Dickerson, the new host of CBS’s Face the Nation gave the following advice to President Barack
Obama in 2013: “The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.”
Stephanopoulos says he should have announced his conflict of interest. If such announcements become commonplace, which they should, where exactly will that end?
Should CBS News announce each and every time it broadcasts news about President Obama’s foreign policy or national security issues that the president of CBS News is actually the brother of White House Deputy
National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes?
Or should ABC News have regularly disclosed that its former ABC News President Ben Sherwood had a sister with the Obama White House? She still works with the Obama administration.
And, NBC? That’s the network of Al Sharpton, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow. …
Chris Harper, formerly of ABC News, has posted his views, along with those of other mostly liberal former
ABC News people, as cited by Kevin Williamson of National Review: “During the 15 years we worked for
ABC News,” wrote Harper, “we remember that we had to sign a yearly disclosure of gifts worth more than
$25 and contributions. Perhaps these documents no longer exist in the muddled world of TV news.”
Added Harper: “Mr. Stephanopoulos has few defenders among his former colleagues. According to a
Facebook page, ABCeniors, the rather liberal bunch of former network staffers discussed the problems with his contributions. ‘That shows either indifference or arrogance. Or a nice cocktail of both,’ wrote one former
ABC hand. A former producer noted: ‘He knew what he was doing, and he didn’t want us to know. That’s deceit.'” …
Former ABC News reporter Carole Simpson said Sunday on CNN’s Reliable Sources that she “was dumbfounded.”
“But I wanted to just take him by the neck and say, George, what were you thinking?
“And clearly, he was not thinking. I thought it was outrageous, and I am sorry that, again, the public’s trust in the media is being challenged and frayed because of the actions of some of the top people in the business.”
She added that “there’s a coziness that George cannot escape the association. He was press secretary for
President Clinton. That’s pretty close. And while he did try to separate himself from his political background to become a journalist, he really is not a journalist. Yet, ABC has made him the face of ABC News, the chief anchor. And I think they’re really caught in a quandary here.” She believes that ABC, despite their public support for Stephanopoulos, is “hopping mad” at him. …
1.
ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos interviewed the author of a book critical of Bill and Hillary
Clinton. What type of bias did Mr. Stephanopoulos display by not disclosing his $75,000 donation to the
Clinton Foundation?
2.
Stephanopoulos in his apology said, “However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the
[Clinton] Foundation.” As a journalist, should he have known to do so? Explain your answer.
3. Lloyd Grove of The Daily Beast asks, “Could Stephanopoulos, who is also ABC News’s chief anchor and political correspondent, be hoping for access to and exclusives from Bill and Hillary, giving him a competitive edge during the 2016 presidential campaign?” Is this a legitimate question? Explain your answer. 10

(Day 4) Celebrities above Media Scrutiny
British designed and German made luxury motor yacht "Topaz" is docked on July 9, 2013 in Nice,
French Riviera. The 482 ft length vessel is the fourth largest yacht in the world. (Photo: VALERY
HACHE/AFP/Getty Images)
The excerpt below is from a
Media Research Center report:
Journalists help promote Hollywood celebrities while condemning average Americans for causing climate change. The same media go out of their way to ignore or excuse the hypocrisy of celebrity
“environmentalists” who fly their private jets around the world, rent mega-yachts and live in massive mansions.
Avatar Director James Cameron warned of a future “world that’s in shambles” because of climate change, and said he believes “in ecoterrorism” yet, he owns an impressive private collection of motorcycles, cars, dirt bikes, a yacht, a helicopter, a Humvee fire truck and a $32-million submarine.
ABC and CBS even praised Cameron for his submarine purchase, with CBS’s Gayle King saying she loved his “passion and curiosity.”
Leonardo DiCaprio ironically stood in front of the UN warning that “if we do not act together, we will surely perish” – just three months after he had flown to Brazil on a private plane to borrow an oil billionaire’s 470-foot yacht. Yet, ABC News praised him for “not just talking the talk [of what he says is our need to reduce our use of fossil fuels].”
MRC Business studied media coverage of 12 celebrity eco-activists, worth $1.9 billion, and found:
Media Outlets Give a Platform to Celebrities: Actors aren’t climate scientists. But when any of the 12 celebrities makes a statement about climate change, the media are quick to promote them. Whether it was DiCaprio’s UN speech calling for more regulations on businesses, or Cameron Diaz’s PSA asking average people to curb their carbon output, print and broadcast media eagerly rushed to interview them.
In the last six months of 2014 alone, ABC, CBS and NBC interviewed these specific celebrities 25 times.
Overwhelmingly Positive Network Coverage: Not once during the 25 interviews on ABC, CBS and
NBC in 2014 did the networks suggest that the celebrities’ lavish lifestyles might disqualify them from
11

lecturing others. Instead, they have referred to them as “incredibly committed,” “responsible” and praised them for “promoting the cause” of combatting climate change.
Media Take Outrageous Claims Seriously: Cameron said “I believe in ecoterrorism,” and Entertainment
Weekly didn’t bat an eye. Arianna Huffington said that SUV owners were funding terrorism, and then claimed she meant it as satire and no one objected. Yet, none of these claims were even mentioned on the broadcast networks that hyped the eco-activism of these celebrities, and they were still touted as credible voices for change.
Recommendations for Journalists:
MRC Business has the following recommendations for journalists who are reporting on the environmental activism or philanthropy of celebrities.
Treat Celebrities Honestly: Celebrities may be famous, but that doesn’t mean that they should automatically get a platform to promote their eco-agenda. Journalists need to recognize that just because someone is well known, doesn’t mean they are well informed. Statements made by celebrities should be evaluated with the same scrutiny as statements given by anyone else.
Don’t Pick and Choose the News: The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that journalists should “support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” It is incumbent upon journalists to analyze the background for groups and individuals on both ends of the political spectrum.
Do Some Genuine Journalism and Investigate Celebrity Climate Change Alarmists: Journalists can’t afford to be starstruck. Media outlets should hold celebrities accountable for their actions, and not turn a blind eye when a celebrity’s lifestyle contradicts his or her message.
12

(Day 5) Liberal vs Conservative Beliefs
Compiled by the Editors. Copyright 2005 (revised 2010) StudentNewsDaily.com.
Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
THE ISSUES: (In alphabetical order) Theses are general conceptions and summaries.
Abortion
Liberal
A woman has the right to decide what happens with her body. The government should provide taxpayer funded abortions for women who cannot afford them. The decision to have an abortion is a personal choice of a woman regarding her own body and the government must protect this right. Women have the right to affordable, safe and legal abortions, including partial birth abortion.
Conservative
Individuals should be admitted to schools and hired for jobs based on their ability. It is unfair to use race as a factor in the selection process. Reverse-discrimination is not a solution for racism. Some individuals in society are racist, but American society as a whole is not. Preferential treatment of certain races through affirmative action is wrong.
Death Penalty
Conservative
Human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. An unborn baby, as a living human being, has separate rights from those of the mother. Oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. Taxpayer dollars should not be used for the government to provide abortions.
Liberal
The death penalty should be abolished. It is inhumane and is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment for murder. Every execution risks killing an innocent person.
Affirmative Action
Conservative
The death penalty is a punishment that fits the crime of murder; it is neither ‘cruel’ nor
‘unusual.’ Executing a murderer is the appropriate punishment for taking an innocent life.
Liberal
Due to prevalent racism in the past, minorities were deprived of the same education and employment opportunities as whites. The government must work to make up for that. America is still a racist society, therefore a federal affirmative action law is necessary. Due to unequal opportunity, minorities still lag behind whites in all statistical measurements of success.
Economy
Liberal
Government must protect citizens from the greed of big business. Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public interest. Government regulation in all areas of the economy is needed to level the playing field.
13

Conservative
The free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise create the greatest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all. Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.
Education – vouchers & charter schools
Liberal
Public schools are the best way to educate students. Vouchers take money away from public schools. Government should focus additional funds on existing public schools, raising teacher salaries and reducing class size.
Conservative
School vouchers create competition and therefore encourage schools to improve performance. Vouchers will give all parents the right to choose good schools for their children, not just those who can afford private schools.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Liberal
Support the use of embryonic stem cells for research. It is necessary (and ethical) for the government to fund embryonic stem cell research, which will assist scientists in finding treatments and cures for diseases. An embryo is not a human. The tiny blastocyst (embryos used in embryonic stem cell research) has no human features. Experimenting on embryos/embryonic stem cells is not murder.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure chronic and degenerative diseases which current medicine has been unable to effectively treat.
Embryonic stem cells have been shown to be effective in treating heart damage in mice.
Conservative
Support the use of adult and umbilical cord stem cells only for research. It is morally and ethically wrong for the government to fund embryonic stem cell research. Human life begins at conception. The extraction of stem cells from an embryo requires its destruction. In other words, it requires that a human life be killed.
Adult stem cells have already been used to treat spinal cord injuries, Leukemia, and even Parkinson’s disease.
Adult stem cells are derived from umbilical cords, placentas, amniotic fluid, various tissues and organ systems like skin and the liver, and even fat obtained from liposuction. Embryonic stem cells have not been successfully used to help cure disease.
Energy
Liberal
Oil is a depleting resource. Other sources of energy must be explored. The government must produce a national plan for all energy resources and subsidize (partially pay for) alternative energy research and production. Support increased exploration of alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. Support government control of gas and electric industries.
Conservative
Oil, gas and coal are all good sources of energy and are abundant in the U.S. Oil drilling should be increased both on land and at sea. Increased domestic production creates lower prices and less dependence on other countries for oil. Support increased production of nuclear energy. Wind and solar sources will never provide plentiful, affordable sources of power. Support private ownership of gas and electric industries.
Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide
Liberal
Euthanasia should be legalized. A person has a right to die with dignity, by his own choice. A terminally ill person should have the right to choose to end pain and suffering. It is wrong for the government to take away the means for a terminally ill person to hasten his death. It is wrong to force a person to go through so much pain and suffering. Legalizing euthanasia would not lead to doctor-assisted suicides of non-critical
14

patients. Permitting euthanasia would reduce health care costs, which would then make funds available for those who could truly benefit from medical care.
Conservative
Neither euthanasia nor physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. It is immoral and unethical to deliberately end the life of a terminally ill person
(euthanasia), or enable another person to end their own life (assisted suicide). The goal should be compassionate care and easing the suffering of terminally ill people. Legalizing euthanasia could lead to doctor-assisted suicides of non-critical patients. If euthanasia were legalized, insurance companies could pressure doctors to withhold lifesaving treatment for dying patients. Many religions prohibit suicide and euthanasia. These practices devalue human life.
Global Warming/Climate Change
Liberal
Global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). The U.S. is a major contributor to global warming because it produces 25% of the world’s carbon dioxide. Proposed laws to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. are urgently needed and should be enacted immediately to save the planet. Many reputable scientists support this theory.
Conservative
Change in global temperature is natural over long periods of time. Science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth’s temperature. Proposed laws to reduce carbon emissions will do nothing to help the environment and will cause significant price increases for all. Many reputable scientists support this theory.
Gun Control
Liberal
The Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to keep and bear arms, but only allows for the state to keep a militia (National
Guard). Individuals do not need guns for protection; it is the role of local and federal government to protect the people through law enforcement agencies and the military. Additional gun control laws are necessary to stop gun violence and limit the ability of criminals to obtain guns. More guns mean more violence.
Conservative
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Individuals have the right to defend themselves. There are too many gun control laws – additional laws will not lower gun crime rates. What is needed is enforcement of current laws. Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens mean less crime.
Full text of the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Healthcare
Liberal
Support free or low-cost government controlled health care. There are millions of Americans who can’t afford health care and are deprived of this basic right. Every American has a right to affordable health care. The government should provide equal health care benefits for all, regardless of their ability to pay.
Conservative
Support competitive, free market health care system. All Americans have access to health care. The debate is about who should pay for it. Free and low-cost government-run programs result in higher costs and everyone receiving the same poor-quality health care. Health care should remain privatized. The problem of uninsured individuals should be addressed and solved within the free market healthcare system – the government should not control healthcare.
15

Homeland Security
Liberal
Airport security – Passenger profiling is wrong, period. Selection of passengers for extra security screening should be random. Using other criteria
(such as ethnicity) is discriminatory and offensive to Arabs and Muslims, who are generally innocent and law-abiding. Terrorists don’t fit a profile.
“…Arabs, Muslims and South Asians are no more likely than whites to be terrorists.” (American
Civil Liberties Union ACLU)
Asked on 60 Minutes if a 70-year-old white woman from Vero Beach should receive the same level of scrutiny as a Muslim from Jersey City,
President Obama’s Transportation Secretary
Norman Mineta said, “Basically, I would hope so.”
Conservative
Airport security – Choosing passengers randomly for extra security searches is not effective. Rather, profiling and intelligence data should be used to single out passengers for extra screening. Those who do not meet the criteria for suspicion should not be subjected to intense screening. The terrorists currently posing a threat to the U.S. are primarily Islamic/Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 38. Our resources should be focused on this group. Profiling is good logical police work.
Immigration
Liberal
Support legal immigration. Support amnesty for those who enter the U.S. illegally
(undocumented immigrants). Also believe that undocumented immigrants have a right to:
— all educational and health benefits that citizens receive (financial aid, welfare, social security and medicaid), regardless of legal status.
— the same rights as American citizens. It is unfair to arrest millions of undocumented immigrants.
Conservative
Support legal immigration only. Oppose amnesty for those who enter the U.S. illegally (illegal immigrants). Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally do not have the same rights as those who obey the law and enter legally. The borders should be secured before addressing the problem of the illegal immigrants currently in the country. The Federal Government should secure the borders and enforce current immigration law.
Private Property
Liberal
Government has the right to use eminent domain
(seizure of private property by the government– with compensation to the owner) to accomplish a public end.
Conservative
Respect ownership and private property rights. Eminent domain (seizure of private property by the government–with compensation to the owner) in most cases is wrong. Eminent domain should not be used for private development.
Religion & Government
Liberal
Support the separation of church and state. The
Bill of Rights implies a separation of church and state. Religious expression has no place in government. The two should be completely separate. Government should not support religious expression in any way. All reference to
God in public and government spaces should be removed (eg., the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in Federal buildings). Religious expression has no place in government.
Conservative
The phrase
“separation of church and state”
is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
This
16

prevents the government from establishing a national church/denomination. However, it does not prohibit God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings. Symbols of
Christian heritage should not be removed from public and government spaces (eg., the Ten
Commandments should continue to be displayed in Federal buildings). Government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom.
Same-sex Marriage
Liberal
Marriage is the union of people who love each other. It should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, to ensure equal rights for all. Support same-sex marriage. Opposed to the creation of a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. All individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, have the right to marry. Prohibiting same-sex citizens from marrying denies them their civil rights. [Opinions vary on whether this issue is equal to civil rights for African Americans.]
Conservative
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Oppose same-sex marriage.
Support Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, which affirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
Requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others, who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Social Security
Liberal
The Social Security system should be protected at all costs. Reduction in future benefits is not a reasonable option. [Opinions vary on the extent of the current system’s financial stability.] Social
Security provides a safety net for the nation’s poor and needy. Changing the system would cause a reduction in benefits and many people would suffer as a result.
Conservative
The Social Security system is in serious financial trouble. Major changes to the current system are urgently needed. In its current state, the Social
Security system is not financially sustainable. It will collapse if nothing is done to address the problems. Many will suffer as a result. Social
Security must be made more efficient through privatization and/or allowing individuals to manage their own savings.
Taxes
Liberal
Higher taxes (primarily for the wealthy) and a larger government are necessary to address inequity/injustice in society (government should help the poor and needy using tax dollars from the rich). Support a large government to provide for the needs of the people and create equality. Taxes enable the government to create jobs and provide welfare programs for those in need. Government programs are a caring way to provide for the poor and needy in society.
Conservative
Lower taxes and a smaller government with limited power will improve the standard of living for all. Support lower taxes and a smaller government. Lower taxes create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Money is best spent by those who earn it, not the government. Government programs encourage people to become dependent and lazy, rather than encouraging work and independence.
United Nations (UN)
Liberal
The UN promotes peace and human rights. The
United States has a moral and a legal obligation to support the United Nations (UN). The U.S. should not act as a sovereign nation, but as one
17

member of a world community. The U.S. should submit its national interests to the greater good of the global community (as defined by the
UN). The U.S. should defer to the UN in military/peacekeeping matters. The United
Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security
Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security. U.S. troops should submit to UN command.
Conservative
The UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission to promote world peace and human rights. The wars, genocide and human rights abuses taking place in many Human Rights
Council member states (and the UN’s failure to stop them) prove this point. History shows that the United States, not the UN, is the global force for spreading freedom, prosperity, tolerance and peace. The U.S. should never subvert its national interests to those of the UN. The U.S. should never place troops under UN control. U.S. military should always wear the U.S. military uniform, not that of UN peacekeepers. [Opinions vary on whether the U.S. should withdraw from the UN.]
War on Terror/Terrorism
Liberal
Global warming, not terrorism, poses the greatest threat to the U.S., according to Democrats in
Congress. Terrorism is a result of arrogant U.S. foreign policy. Good diplomacy is the best way to deal with terrorism. Relying on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism. Captured terrorists should be handled by law enforcement and tried in civilian courts.
Conservative
Terrorism poses one of the greatest threats to the
U.S. The world toward which the militant
Islamists strive cannot peacefully co-exist with the
Western world. In the last decade, militant
Islamists have repeatedly attacked Americans and
American interests here and abroad. Terrorists must be stopped and destroyed. The use of intelligence-gathering and military force are the best ways to defeat terrorism around the world. Captured terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants and tried in military courts.
Welfare
Liberal
Support welfare, including long-term welfare. Welfare is a safety net which provides for the needs of the poor. Welfare is necessary to bring fairness to American economic life. It is a device for protecting the poor.
Conservative
Oppose long-term welfare. Opportunities should be provided to make it possible for those in need to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage people to become self-reliant, rather than allowing them to remain dependent on the government for provisions.
18