Perspective Definition

Lucas Brooks
Professor Roy
ECON 4310
30 April 2016

Perspective, in its dictionary definition, is considered to be the appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer. Simply put, perspective is most similar to a pair of prescription glasses through which each individual views and interprets the world, relative to themselves. It is indicative of one’s personality, judgement, and beliefs—otherwise known as one’s scope. It should be noted that no two perspectives are the same, for everyone has their own inimitable perspective; this concept is applicable to every aspect of life. Whether it be religion, sports, or politics, perspective plays a crucial role in the interpretation and delivery of information

For instance, in the case of an Obama-led contraceptive policy requiring health insurance plans provided by Catholic universities and charities to offer free birth control to women, the differences between the approach these two news sources take are vastly different. As objectively as possible, the story is as follows: contraception, which has always been a wedge issue between the two parties, was being forwarded by the Obama administration. As a result, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, stepped in and said he refused to allow this attack on “religious freedom” to occur. Congressmen from both sides then felt the need to weigh in on the issue (along party lines), and they each expressed their own thoughts on the issue (Steinhauer, 2012). Why does this matter? Well, two things can be taken from this. First, the forwarding of the liberal agenda on this issue could be considered an attack on religious freedom. However, to oppose something like this, as a conservative, could be considered to be an attack on women’s rights. The story is pretty cut and dry, but it all just comes down to how each media outlet chooses to spin

First, take a look at the titles. From just reading “Obama Birth Control stokes fight” and “Birth Control Covered, GOP vows a fight”, one should be able to tell, almost instantly, what each article’s disposition is. Now, from here, in each respective article, the author highlights the direction in which each these two outlets lean. On the DR article, the article has a harsh, condemning tone towards the Obama administration—this tone remains constant and present through the entirety of the article. With respect to the conservative politicians mentioned (which is a much larger number than the liberal politicians it mentions), the DR article conveys a very defensive tone; it feels like a justification or backing of their stance/actions. The polar opposite can be said for the NYT article, in which the Obama administration is not scrutinized nearly as much, and liberal representative statements are not sped over or drowned out by religious support. I find that there is more balance in the NYT article, in this