Media Comparison: The New York Times And Democracynow

When looking at the messages media is sending us, it is important to try and figure out where the information is coming from and how the information is being presented to us, the viewers. For the purposes of this essay I will focus on the headlines on and front pages two news sources, The New York Times and DemocracyNow.org, January 26th 2016. The focus is on the headlining news because this information is what these sources consider the most important to their respective audiences. While both these media sources seem to be left skewed we will look at how one being a small independent news source, Democracy Now, and one being a large corporation with economic and political ties, The New York Times, effects how and what these papers report.

Threw this they looked at issues facing our planet and how we can help to prevent these other issues. It also had an upbeat message about things that make us human and how global warming cannot change how we treat each other. In sharp contrast The New York Times focused on how the cheapening of fossil fuels will lead to increase prices of alternative resources and our dependence. Is makes sense that the company who has economic ties would focus on the economic aspects of global issues. It’s also important to note that they expressed economic issues that affected their company and their

Democracy Now’s independence allows them to be as left wing as they want, but it is rare for any major news company to be the same. But even beyond that, it may also be that The New York Times is not as liberal as they may seem. As explained by Nom Chomsky in the movie Manufacturing Consent, big media authorities often put on the disguise of being liberal in order to avoid criticism. Because The New York Times talks about issues in the government and society readers are not as likely to notice or care that the paper has some underling agendas. They ignored Bernie sanders critique on the Keystone pipe line, they pushed their economic agenda when talking about alternative fuel, and they didn't discuss racial issues that benefited their leadership, yet by the end of their articles readers walk away on the side of the news believing they are on the side of social justice. Perhaps Democracy Now is able to report more freely because they do not have the same obligation to advertisers and higher up’s agendas, but on the flip side of that coin they also have less notoriety and authority. That’s not to say the Democracy Now is unbiased, because every piece of their news has to come from some ones