
Unit 2
Bias in Media
Language Analysis
About this Unit
This assignment revealed biases held by different news outlets by comparing them to an objective source (AP News). I was asked to apply in-depth language analysis to uncover these biases.
The Delta variant of the coronavirus is providing great difficulty not only to Americans but to news outlets as well. Dr. Anthony Fauci made a speech in July 2021 on CNN’s “State of the Union” about the new virus detailing his predictions as well as recommendations for vaccines and masks. In three articles from AP News, CNN, and Fox News, the contexts of Fauci’s CNN “State of the Union” speech are dissected in varying degrees. While AP News and CNN take more objective and straightforward stances, the Fox News article provides nuanced information and context that suggests a shift in the news outlet’s opinion.
There is a clear contrast in the central themes of the AP News and CNN articles and the Fox News article noted through the word choice in each headline. AP News employs the headline “Fauci says US headed in ‘wrong direction’ on coronavirus,” taking a neutral stance using a direct quote in the same way it is seen in the speech. CNN provides a similar headline of “Fauci: 'We're going in the wrong direction' on Covid-19 cases,” which does much of what the AP News headline does, except adds a bit of nuance by including the word we. By adding this pronoun, it makes the argument slightly more personal to loyal readers of the news outlet, and also fosters a feeling of an “us versus them” narrative. This is a possible result of the outlet’s left-leaning views that promote vaccination and stricter protocols and look down on the Republican freedom-of-choice attitude for the virus. Both the AP News article and the CNN article go on to mention unvaccinated Americans in order to suggest they are among the causes of the rise in cases. The headline for Fox News reads “Fauci says virus has ‘peaked’ for the vaccinated: ‘We have two kinds of America’,” explicitly stating the type of divide that CNN alludes to by using the word we as well as suggesting that the virus is splitting the country into two. This type of figurative language evokes a feeling of distrust and is reminiscent of the type of division seen in American politics over the past few years. Fox also diverges from the other articles by singling out vaccinated Americans in the headline. This subtle phrasing gives the impression that vaccinated people are more dangerous because their cases are “‘peaking’.”
The three articles use relatively similar language to relay the information at hand. One notable difference is the description of the new Delta variant. AP News uses the adjective “virulent,” taking an impartial stance based more on science while providing hints of severity through the connotation of the word (“Fauci Says US Headed”). The power in this word comes from its objectivity—a disease can either be virulent or not, and there is no disputing where the Delta variant stands on this given the recent statistics. CNN employs the more emotionally charged word “dangerous,” which calls for vigilance and provokes fear (Duster). By keeping its followers on high alert, the news outlet is able to carry out its goal of convincing more people to take preventative steps. Alternatively, Fox News characterizes the variant as “more severe,” an unassuming word choice to those outside of the outlet’s readership (Aitken). This word choice actually serves to emphasize the difference in magnitude of the delta variant as compared to the original Covid-19 virus that the Trump administration dealt with. These slight variances in language provide insight into each source’s motive and perspective.
The Fox News article uses deliberate word choices to further express its bias against the Biden administration. Biden’s words are scrutinized, as the article states that he “tout[ed]” that the virus statistics were indicating a decline (Aitken). This word is very pointed and serves to paint Biden as wielding a degree of power that he is not capable of. This word implies that Biden is overconfident in his stance on the virus and that the actions he is taking are not enough. His claim of decreasing cases was directly countered by including Fauci’s assertion that cases are declining but only in the vaccinated population in the same sentence (Aitken). Challenging Biden’s words here suggests that he is spreading misinformation and unfit to deal with a crisis of this scale. It also suggests that Biden may be responsible for the rift between Americans as this insinuates that he was responsible for Americans recently putting their guard down and deciding not to get vaccinated. This sentence also takes the side of Fauci and uses his word as hard truth, which is something the news outlet has not been eager to do over the past year.
At the beginning of the pandemic, Fox News sided with Donald Trump and downplayed the severity of the virus to promote the idea that Trump had control over the situation. Now, they are emphasizing its severity and encouraging people to take necessary precautions. There has been a shift of focusing on Covid-19 and more on the Delta variant and attempting to paint the variant as deadly instead. In fact, Fox News host Sean Hannity made a statement in mid-July asking viewers to take Covid seriously and supporting vaccines efficacy after downplaying its severity in the past (Rupar). All of this is in an effort to shift any blame from Fox News (for discouraging its viewers from vaccinating) and onto Fauci and Biden’s administration (Rupar).
Over the course of the past year, the Covid-19 pandemic has morphed into more of a political debate rather than a public health issue. Republicans and Democrats have taken strikingly different stances on the virus, masks, federal and local regulations, and vaccine rollout. However, as things began to change in 2021—with the Biden administration taking over, vaccines being put on the market, and the new Delta variant of the virus—some media coverage began to mirror this shift. Specifically, Fox News is now painting the virus as more deadly and pointing out the flaws in Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Biden administration’s approach.
References
Aitken, Peter. “Fauci Says Virus Has ‘peaked’ for the Vaccinated: ‘We Have Two Kinds of
America.’” Fox News, Fox News, 25 July 2021,
https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-virus-peaked-vaccinated-two-kinds-
Duster, Chandelis. “Fauci: ‘We’re Going in the Wrong Direction’ on Covid.” CNN, 25 July
2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/25/politics/anthony-fauci-covid-19-
unvaccinated-cnntv/index.html.
“Fauci Says US Headed in ‘wrong Direction’ on Coronavirus.” AP NEWS, 25 July 2021,
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-anthony-fauci-masks-
70585010748808ce2284cfc19b608e47.
Rupar, Aaron. “Don’t Be Fooled by That Viral Hannity Clip. Fox News’s Covid-19
Coverage Is a Mess.” Vox, 20 July 2021, https://www.vox.com/22585354/hannity-

Unit 2 Reflection
The media bias assignment was very intriguing for me and expanded upon the types of prose analysis I did in high school. I enjoyed incorporating my personal opinions about the motives of each news article into the essay. It was almost cathartic to see how every single word contributed to an underlying motive for each author. I was especially excited to write about the Fox News bias and their motivations. It was interesting to see how strong bias can still exist even when it is not apparent on the surface, and especially when it is not the type of bias you are expecting.
The actual analysis of the quotes was extremely difficult for me. Even before this class, I tended to draw conclusions on material based on feeling and I am usually stuck with the task of giving logic to these gut reactions. I tried avoiding this by going into the analysis with no assumptions until I had found connections between the quotes chosen in my chart assignment. However, I did struggle a bit with pushing aside my own feelings and biases. I ultimately focused the paper more on my own assumptions about Fox News rather than simply analyzing the language in each article. For example, I mentioned the word “virulent” as being an objective description of the virus in my rough draft without analyzing further. Even in my final draft my analysis on this word choice is shaky and this suggests that my opinion on this word choice was based on unsound reasoning. I almost expected the quotes to speak for themselves. In this case specifically, my failure to really dive deeper into the true denotations and connotations of the words weakened my argument and left my analyses at a surface level.
There were a few things that were missing altogether in my paper. Firstly, I skimmed over much of the material outlined in the articles. I failed to mention the ways that vaccine recommendations and mask protocols were discussed. I had a lot written down about how all three of the articles included mask recommendations being thrown in at the end; Fox News even took a slightly different stance. The Fox News article had an extremely brief mention of masks and made sure to emphasize how the decision was slated to be a local one (to appeal to Republican readers who dislike federal regulations). It also made sure to mention (multiple times) the recommendation that vaccinated people still wear masks. I believe this would have strengthened my overall argument about this specific article as it paints the proposed regulations as somewhat unnecessary. Followers of Fox News probably already have negative opinions on masks and do not want to have the freedom of choice taken away from them, so the outlet creates a feeling of masks being forced upon them by repeatedly telling people to wear their masks. I also should have looked into the funding and loyalties of each news outlet and factored that into the biases that I uncovered. I think this would have proved to be an extremely interesting point, especially as Dr. Fauci was speaking at CNN and has obvious ties to the news outlet. This would have proved an automatic bias towards defending whatever Fauci claims as being irrefutable.
My essay warrants a grade in the B range. My argument is not based on sound evidence that is explained through the paper, and I largely glossed over the piles of evidence that I had at my disposal. The paper is also written poorly and jumps around from different points and has a hard time staying within the focus outlined in the introduction. However, most of the analyses in my paper provided unique perspectives into the word choices and offered insight into how the word choices play into bigger literary choices from each author.