# data[].attributes.body
1. What do you notice about the coverage in the two events?
2. Why might this be the case?
3. Try to characterize the type of person who might be drawn to such coverage. Think ethnicity, age, political perspective, wealth status etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Link: https://youtu.be/j6lIbGGA8Z0
Answer the questions below.

# data[].attributes.body
Link: https://youtu.be/J2Pjudf0810
Answer the questions below:

# data[].attributes.body
Identify ONE persuasive device used in documentaries. Find a definition and an example (could be a clip, audio or written example). Add it below. If someone else has added it first, you start again at the beginning with a new device!

# data[].attributes.body
Rewatch any of the news report videos in today's lesson. Using the Persuasive Devices from the list in Task 2, identify AT LEAST 3 examples from the videos. Describe the example, and include a time stamp as well as stating what video it is on...

# data[].attributes.body
1. Ignorant beyond belief. This is a clear example of racism. The fox reporters believe black people are wrong to protest being murdered by cops "there is absolutely no reason, no excuse that this continues to take place", but white people are right to protest for wearing a mask "you cant take everybody's freedom".

2. This Fox News originates from a racist country and so, it portrays the US’s political perspective. The perspective or view of any event or issue in the news is always portrayed in a political perspective.

3. The type of people who would be drawn to such coverage are white teenage and adult men and women, who have the same political perspective as their country of the black people community.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Both events of the new coverage experience a bias in which, in this case, the news anchor tries to persuade the audience using manipulation of what they think happened versus what actually happened.
2. This may be the case due to different opinions. This news anchor, in particular, their side of political beliefs to the audience. In which pertaining to the different political beliefs in the country.

3. Obviously, the type of people who would be drawn to this type of news coverage are people who side with their views of politics. This may range in between people who are in university, to people who are adults due to their needs of following whats right to them and of course listening about it along with their educational senses. It would be seen as people with more power or a huge hubris would tend to acknowledge this news coverage as this news anchor vehemently shows their opinion(s) based on beliefs of divided politics.

# data[].attributes.body
1. There is a clear difference in how both topics are discussed. When speaking of the Staten Island protests, words such as 'fighting for freedom', or 'protesting', the news anchors clearly justify this behavior by stating 'you cant just take away freedom' or 'people are on the edge'. Whereas when discussing the BLM protests, terms such as 'brutality', 'criminal activity', and 'uncontrolled', are used. This gives the audience the impression that the BLM protestors are less justified and more dangerous than the Staten Island protestors, and it is clear that the news channel excuses the Staten Island protests, but not the BLM. Whether consciously or nor, this clear bias leaves an impression on audience.
2. Racism. Fox News clearly does not approve of the BLM, even though they are also 'fighting for their freedom' in a similar sense to the Staten Island protestors.
3. Someone who is against the BLM or sides more with the police force would approve of this news coverage.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Each event had been described in two different perspectives and opinions depending on the side to which the news channel leans towards, unfolding the news in both the citizens perspective, and in governmental perspective.

2. This would be the case due to audiences preference and opinions, as each news channel tends to feed their audiences the news in the specific opinions and ways they tend to better accept, whether it be in a liberal perspective or a conservative perspective.

3. I think each channel is watched by a variety of people depending on their personal political perspective which tends to originate from ones background which includes age, ethnicity, wealth status, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
1. there was a clear difference in both events , they were ignorant and biased against the black people who were wearing masks and protesting against the BLM movement, whilst talking about the white people protesting against wearing a mask they were a lot calmer and agreeing to the situation and finding out excuses and ways to justify the “lockdown” and why people may be upset as well as solutions, however, with the black people and the BLM protests they name them as criminals and are passive aggressive and when giving solutions or asking why they are let free the tone in Trevors voice suggests he was angry but with the white people he was mostly monotoned or just extra polite about it.
2. This may be a case of pure ignorance and and racial injustice towards the black people and the white supremacy towards the white people.
3. the video can be targeted towards people with a strong political point of view, more middle aged and probably caucasian

# data[].attributes.body
Discrimination is applicable to both issues justify by the two sides of the card. But what is clear is that the public reaction to both events when from little support to significant events, and both supporters or opposition were definitely in agree with their points without seeking for any solution.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Both events had been covered very differently, between one event (staten island protest) they had been more supportive and defensive whereas with other event (BLM protest) it had been the opposite.
2. As the news channel covering the events (fox news) is very bias.
3. Those who would be drawn to such coverage would be possibly those against the BLM movement.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The converage of the staten  island protest is covered more as a political event as it effects the whole of the people and goes against the bill of rights where as the Blm Protest have happens several times over the history of America as a country most recent prior to this was the 2015 Baltimore protests

2 . The news network that this aired  on is Fox News which is a very biased news network that thens to not address these stituations

3. The people that would be drawn to this would be the republican party or households that practice christian religion

# data[].attributes.body
1. BLM were ignorant, bias and racist and state island protest portrayed more about how you cant control peoples freedom.
2. Portrays US political perspective, which is racist and characterize black people as violent and criminals.
3. White middle aged adults.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The coverage for the anti-mask protests was defensive whereas the coverage for BLM was ignorant, misleading and even hostile. This shows clear racism.
2. Racism and a bias against black people within the news station.
3.  White people who are anti-BLM and who hold generally right-wing and conservative ideals.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I noticed that the coverage is only reported by middle aged white men and women. I also noticed that when talking about the Staten Island protest they used "softer" words while using harsher words when talking about BLM protests.

2. Their word choice is crucial because it subconsciously changes a person's point of view on a situation. Using harsher words can escalate a situation and therefore make it seem worse.

3. The coverage targets white middle aged men and women that have a semi-wealthy background.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Every occasion had been portrayed in two alternate points of view and sentiments relying upon the side to which the news channel inclines towards, unfurling the news in both the resident's viewpoint and in legislative point of view.
2. This would be the situation because of crowds' inclination and assessments, as every news channel will in general channel their crowds the news in the particular sentiments and ways they will in general better acknowledge, regardless of whether it be in a liberal viewpoint or a moderate viewpoint.
3. I think each channel is watched and depicted relying upon political point of view which will in general start from ones foundation which incorporates age, identity, abundance status, and so forth

# data[].attributes.body
1. The staten island protests are being excused by the reporters, they are saying that you cant take away peoples freedom without this sort of thing happening. When a cop got hit by a car the reporters defended the guy who drove into the cop, but in the BLM protests they were saying that they needed to arrest people and put those who were protesting in jail, even though the BLM protests have a more justified cause than the Staten island protest.
2. This may be the case due to racism within the reporting channels, as the BLM protests were defending black people and they were harsher towards it.
3. The people who would have been drawn to this coverage are middle aged citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span provides all coverage to the news channels

2. Each channel include their own "understanding" of what is being displayed through small visual boxes.

3. CNN have too many people talking and conversing at the same time, preventing efficient and clear news coverage.

4. The critic suggests to instead read or observe news articles and written news such as newspapers instead of live coverage of news.

# data[].attributes.body
1. There is a bias in the coverages
2. The tv news programme/network is known to be a very biased
3. I think people who would be drawn to politics or lower status people, in which the events happening may affect them

# data[].attributes.body
1. Though both stories being covered are similar the fox news news reporters seem to contradict themselves in almost every point they present
2. This could be happening to show a clear bias amongst the news broadcasters which they share towards one event, compared to the disapproval they show towards the other event
3. Anyone who is against the BLM movement or who believes that racial inequality is not an issue. Maybe showing an uneducated approach to the news they are covering, suggesting a much more informed and educated opinion should be introduced

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span provides all the raw footage to news anchors
2. They put their own graphics on the scene. Implementing their own opinion or understanding of the content.
3.  They referred to it as being called a "witch-hunt".
4. It can be difficult to comprehend due to the amount of people talking on political analysis shows.
5. He suggests to watch to coverage of C-Span or turning off the TV to look at blogs from news sources such at the Washington Post or New York Times.

# data[].attributes.body
1. All cable networks use one feed for their coverage: C-Span

2. Each cable news adds its own graphics and small visual boxes with their view of the coverage.

3. Witch hunt

4. Difficult to comprehend and understand the news because too many reporters are talking.

5. Suggests to turn off the tv and watch live blogs, Washington Post, New York Times, Politico or watch C-span unfiltered with no political analysis.

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC had understood Michelle Obama's speech to be "perfect" in both its "tone" and "content", clearly providing their understand and political view of her appearance in this matter.

2. Fox had mentioned Michelle Obama's speech to be "generic" and "not say too much", defiling Fox news's understanding and political forecast of what they think about her.

# data[].attributes.body
MSNBC: They described her speech as 'perfect'. Stating that it was 'pitch perfect'. They described Michelle's speech as perfect in both tone and content, as well as stating it is a reason to be proud of the country, and that it could not have gone better for her. They referenced the mentions of 'country', painting Michelle in a positive and patriotic light.
Fox News: They continually point out that Michelles speech lacked content in their eyes. They stated that the mentions of country were too brief, 'there was only one reference to the troops', which is a direct contrast to MSNBC which painted these references as positive. They did provide justified reasons for their disapproval, but there was many unjustified negative remarks that were deflected by complimenting her appearance. Overall this news channel is biased against Michelle Obama's speech and portrayed her in a negative manner.

# data[].attributes.body
1 C-span
2. Fox News, Msnbc, CNN add their own graphics to the coverage
3. witch hunt
4. CNN is a biased network that presses there political opinions
5. turn off the tv or Washington post, New York Times or live vlogs.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span gives all inclusion to the news channels
2. Each channel incorporates its own "understanding" of what is being shown through little visual boxes.
3. CNN has an excessive number of individuals talking and chatting simultaneously, forestalling proficient and clear news inclusion.
4. The pundit recommends rather peruse or notice news stories and composed news, for example, papers as opposed to living inclusion of information.

# data[].attributes.body
MSNBC was more supportive towards Michelle's speed. They described her "pitch perfect" with the balance of content and tone. They support her references to the country and claim her overall speed was very good and ends by saying "case closed".

On the other hand, Fox news kept pointing out their opinion of the flaws in the speech, they stated the convention was a "largely wasted night" and "it wasn't a great speech". They also kept mentioning how she looked good however did not deliver properly. Therefore only positive aspect they mentioned was about her appearance.

# data[].attributes.body
The  MSNBC was supportive of the speech and the policy describing the speech a "perfect" and careless
about the country. They repeatedly mention that she did well because it was "well performed" and the her views and real means.
But the FOX news shows a little opposition to her speech but saying that was a bit "wasted" but still supporting her on the speech, although they were not to happy.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-span provides an outlet for all media coverage, c-span is all news channels raw footage provider
2. they all put their own graphics on the screen , to give their own analysis of the events taking place
3.  Witch hunt
4.  CNN is biased and speaks their own opinions, there are too many people and reporters talking at a time which makes it harder to comprehend and take in all the information given
5. they suggest to turn off the TV to avoid fake news and to watch live blogs like the new york times, Washington post, politico, or an uncensored, unedited and raw footage from C-span itself.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span provides all the footage to the media outlets
2. Their own analysis of the event that are occurring
3. When the describe the impeachment as a "witch-hunt"
4. Too many people talking over each other
5. C-Span or any media that does not present bias opinions

# data[].attributes.body
The view of MSNBC on Michelle Obama's speech was content. Stating that it was 'well-performed' and 'delivered it very well'. They kept on mentioning her view on the country or saying that she loved it which implements a vary bright mood and tone to the audience towards Michelle Obama.
Fox news portrayed Michelle Obama's speech as 'not interesting' and very 'generic'. They mostly implied flaws of the speech and did not give any since of content as they were very tepid toward is. Fox news kept on chiding on how Michelle Obama only mentioned the troops few times versus the way MSNBC portrayed that statement which was in a bright way.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span
2. They add their own graphics to the videos they receive.
3. It had been referred to as 'witch-hunt'.
4. Many reporters are talking at once.
5. C-span

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span
2. Cable news add their own graphics and analysis over the original live footage.
3. "Witch Hunt"
4. Everyone is talking so it can be difficult to keep up with what they are saying or how to interpret what they are saying.
5. It is always an option to update yourself with live blogs such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and/ or just watch the original C-Span footage without any graphics.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Cspan
2. Graphic boxes and analysis
3. A 'witch hunt'
4. Too many people talking
5. Reading live news blogs like  The New York Times and The Washington Post. Another option is to watch the original Cspan footage, without the added graphic boxes and political analysis that new channels add on.

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC view on Michelle obamas speech was supporting her tone, her message and just overall supporting her as a member of the Democratic Party but also supporting her message about the troops and love for America. As the news caster repeated " Her tone was pitch perfect and her character was pitch perfect.

2. Fox News said Michelle obamas speech was generic and repetitive. However this news network is openly known to be biased to the conservative party.

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC completely support Michelle Obama's speech by saying things such as "That could not have gone better for them" and "I'm very proud of my country"
2. FOX show complete disapproval of Michelle Obama's speech by saying "Cant help but feel, that it was a largely wasted night" and "I thought it was sort of generic, it didn't say that much that was interesting"

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span
2. Graphics on screen and analysis
3. Witch Hunt
4. With CNN, there are too many people talking at the same time, making it unclear to understand what is being said
5. He suggest to watch C-Span's coverage as it is unbiased and only shows footage without the graphics and analysis CNN, MSNBC and fox news put on the screen.

# data[].attributes.body
One persuasive technique that is often used in popular movies or documentaries which are intended to give out a message or persuade their audience is the use of celebratory endorsement. This is as most movies or documentaries which star a well known person whom has a following behind them can result in change within the audiences opinions or understanding of the cause due the audiences devotion towards their celebratory idol, and their opinion or portrayed understanding in the specific film or documentary.

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC had been completely supportive of Michelle Obama's speech, as they had mentioned it to be 'perfect' through emphasizing that her 'tone' had been quite good.
2. Fox News had been in contrast, unsupportive and very critical, and had disapproved Michelle Obama's speech, as suggested through the reporters mentioning it was a "largely wasted night" and that it was "generic".

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC's perspective on Michelle Obama would be angelic. A woman who delivered a powerful speech to the people and did it with grace and elegance.
2. FOX on the other hand did their best to downplay her speech and the effect it had on the crowd. They did this by saying her speech was bland and "generic." At one point a news correspondent said that how she delivered the speech was powerful but what she said wasn't the great, only before saying "and she came across as extremely attractive." By objectifying her they decrease the power of her words.

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC was completely supportive of Michelle Obama's speech, supportive of her message and love for America. They also claim her performance was “pitch perfect”, she balanced her content and tone.

2. On the other hand, Fox News was unsupportive and very critical, they only shared negative opinions on the speech. They mentioned it was very generic, repetitive, and that it was a “largely wasted night”. This new network is known for its bias political view and “hate” for black people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Persuasive Device: Emotive Language (Appeal to Emotion)

# data[].attributes.subject
Persuasive Device: Emotive Language (Appeal to Emotion)

# data[].attributes.body
One of the main persuasive techniques is appeal to emotion. By tapping into the audiences emotion, it is easy to create a bias or sway opinions. This is achieved by using the persuasive device; emotive language. Emotive language is the use of language to stimulate an emotional response.
Example:
Non-emotive version: The men were killed.
Emotive language: The victims were murdered in cold blood.

# data[].attributes.body
Usually a persuasive technique used in documentaries is the expressions of people face to produce more moral effect on the viewer and to transmit their message in a visual and efficient way. This technique is effective since just with the image and little text the audience automatically understand and experience the feelings the documentary tries to transmit.

# data[].attributes.body
Colors
In documentaries colors are used to appeal to the audience. Turning the visuals black and white creates more of a serious mood or negative perspective, on the other hand colorful visuals displays positivity and happeniess.
Black and white visuals can also suggest something happening in the past or flash backs.

# data[].attributes.body
The use of dynamic range is quite a prominent technique for persuasion in documentaries. It is " the ability of the camera to see in either bright or dark areas at the same time". This technique is used to convey the type of feeling the documentary wants you to feel towards a particular image, message, or setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Using repetition to repeat facts or statistics can be a great way to persuade the audience as you are consistently presenting your ideas and backing them up with evidence

# data[].attributes.body
One persuasive device used in documentrys

# data[].attributes.body
One persuasive technique used in documentaries is the use of rhetorical questions, defined as a question asked that is meant to emphasize a dramatic effect rather than to receive an example, one written example of this would be "how would you feel if...?".

# data[].attributes.body
1. When they talked about BLM, they showed the view that BLM protesters were ignorant and violent, even though they knew there was a legitimate reason for the protests to take place. Also I could notice that these hosts were all white women and men.
2. People's choice of words can have a big impact on what perspective they will look like to others. Therefore, the strong, negative tone words used by BLM protesters made them appear to be violent people only.
3. The people who will receive the coverage are middle aged men and women

# data[].attributes.body
MSNBC was more steady of Michelle's speed. They depicted her as "pitch-great" with the equilibrium of substance and tone. They support her references to the country and guarantee her general speed was awesome and closes by saying "case shut".
Then again, Fox News continued bringing up their assessment of the defects in the discourse, they expressed the show was a "generally squandered evening" and "it was certainly not an incredible discourse". They additionally continued referencing what she looked like great anyway didn't convey as expected. Accordingly just certain viewpoint they referenced was about her appearance.

# data[].attributes.body
Staten Island Protests vs. BLM Protests

0;36: Emphasis on words, "criminal behavior" "justified"
1:05: Rhetorical questioning. "how do you stop the rioting"
1;30 repetition. "no reasoning, no excuse"

# data[].attributes.body
The use of exaggeration makes the documentary more exciting and also more persuasive and get the listeners hooked through the use of making things sound more interesting whilst avoiding lying.

# data[].attributes.body
1. During the video of the BLM protests, the news reporters made logical sense about how there were some things that were being taken too far, it was clear that there was not a lot of information or any type of positive outlook with the speech that Michelle Obama had said.
2. This might be the case because there are a lot of people who might not like the fact that there was a democratic convention in general and sometimes these things might affect the way that people view the situation as others, which allows themselves to be easily swayed by what is said.
3. The people who might want to watch these types of news are the people who either disagree with BLM movement and generally do not want to get themselves involved, or they are people who think of looking at things differently and not like black lives in general.

# data[].attributes.body
The MSNBC spoke positively about her speech, they described it as ‘pitch perfect’, that it was amazing and could not have gone better for them, they talked about tone more and not content, which is one of the negatives they talked about in MSNBC , they described that she had 6 mentions of the country and the troops to protect them, there was one person who said not everyone was going to be charmed but overall they portrayed Michelle Obama as patriotic, positive, with grace, elegance and angelic.
The fox news on the other hand described it as..

# data[].attributes.body
Emotive language: "Excusing criminal behavior as somehow justified" (emphasis on 'criminal' and 'somehow')

Rhetorical question: "How do you stop the rioting, if the rioters are arrested but not charged or fined."

Repetition: "There is absolutely no reason, no excuse, that this continues to take place."

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC's perspective was that Michelle Obama's speech was 'perfect' and they also supported her references to the country
2. On the other hand, Fox New's perspective was that it was a very unclear speech, where she didn't make much references to the country and said that it was "a largely wasted night".

# data[].attributes.body
Repetition: 0:44 (Michelle Obama video)
Repetion: 1:27 (Trump Impeachment video)
Repetition: 0:50 (Trump Impeachment video)

# data[].attributes.body
Facial expression: 0:26- Fox News vs MSNBC: Michelle's speech. The Fox News correspondent tries to integrate dull and disappointed expression when referring to Michelle Obama's speech to emphasize a very abysmal speech coming from Michelle Obama.

Repetition- 1:36:

Should you follow impeachment on Fox News, MSNBC or CNN? None of them. (to reinforce a statement linked to an opinion)

repetition- 0:45-0:49:

Fox vs. MSNBC: Michelle's Speech (to castigate on t4he overall performance of Michelle Obama. Stating examples how how she should have overcome the flaws she made by conveying those techniques as 'pitch-perfect'.

# data[].attributes.body
4. CNN have and unclear idea since too many people talk at the same time about the same thing
- 1. -san
2. Graphics on screen are diferents
3. Which HUNT
5. He suggest to turn of the TV since the information is not really useful without the graphics.

# data[].attributes.body
1. When broadcasting the two events there was a clear difference in perspective. Staten Island was portrayed as more lightly and with reporters trying to justify the protestors actions. In contrast, the BLM were faced with criticism as well as the protests being portrayed as aggressive and ignorant. Overall, there was a stark contrast in portrayal with a bias towards a certain group potentially due to racial issues.
2. As mentioned beforehand, this may be due to racial issues. Throughout the years America has been known for a history of racial disputes between certain communities, the BLM protests are an example of said issues. However, these events have always been portrayed in a certain light due to popular media and so on. Furthermore, another detail to consider is all the news hosts reporting the matter are white thus not giving a different racial perspective nor justification of what they are portraying. Essentially, a white host can potentially be biased in what they say.
3. Biased coverage in this case more caters towards those in the white, middle aged (30-50+), middle to high class and republican/right leaning individuals. These views are generally beneficial and or preferred to be seen by these communities or individuals as it portrays their (sometimes strong) opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
MSNBC constantly stated that Michelles speech was a perfect balance between content and tone, claiming that if the speech had to be about either one of them it would have succeeded.

In the eyes of fox news, her speech was bland and dry, but they still had to admit that the speech had a good deliverance.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Repetition : Michelle Obama video : 0:45
2. Repetition : Trump Impeachment video : 1:30
3. Repetition : Trump Impeachment video : 0:53

# data[].attributes.body
rhetorical questions are used in the Michelle Obama video at 0:48, where the reporter repeats a question in a different form to which emphasizes his understanding of the quality to which was displayed during her speech. This is also a clear example of repetition, as the same intended message was being constantly fed to the audiences in hope to impact their understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Michelle Obama- Rhetorical question (1:30)  "How do you stop the rioting, if the rioters are arrested but not charged or fined."

Michelle Obama- Repetition (0:44) "if the speech was to be more about tone than the content pitch-perfect, if was supposed to be more about content than tone thats pitch-perfect".

Fox New Protests- Repetition (1:30) "no reasoning, no excuse"

# data[].attributes.body
Repetition: 0:44 (Michelle Obama video)
Repetion: 1:27 (Trump  video)
Repetition: 0:50 (Trump  video)

# data[].attributes.body
Many documentaries use statistics, they are mainly used not to only give the viewer some facts about the topic, but sometimes they are also used to bring over an emotion to the viewer to persuade them.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-span gives all the media coverage and photos.
2.They add their own graphics and ideas revolving around what is happening within the coverage.
3. They referred to the entire thing as something that wasn't going to be memorable, it did not have enough talk about the U.S, and that it shouldn't have been used.
4. CNN has a lot of people talking with different opinions so it can be hard to listen.
5. The critic says that they should either watch c-span or they would not watch the tv since they can wait for the next day for news paper reports.

# data[].attributes.body
Repetition - Michell Obama video 0:44
Repetition - Trump Impeachment video 1:27
Repetition - Trump Impeachment video 0:50

# data[].attributes.body
1. The difference amongst the two media coverages is clearly perceptible, the reporters executed bias behaviour with a racist judgement against the BLM movement however showed a completely different attitude as opposed to the Staten Island protest dismissing it claiming “there’s still freedom in this country." However in reference to the BLM movement the reporter inclined “curfews need to be enforced”

2. Purely Racism. The US chooses to air News Channels that shed light on events from a political perspective as strategy to influence the audience.

3. An individual that is easily manipulated and drawn to politics, under the influence that the police are always right.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Cspan provides all media coverage amongst all news channels.

2. Each cable news channel provide their own graphics on screen over the original footage with the aim to carry out their own visual portrayal.

3. “Witch hunt.”

4. CNN is a bias network that reaches an extensive audience, encouraging falsely executed reports.

5. Critics suggests to switch go the tv and become more informed from live blogs from other news sources, such as the New York Times.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-span all raw footage to news networks.
2. News channels add their own graphics and text to the footage.
3. They referred to it as a "witch hunt" and an "impeachment scheme" which was called tiresome and pointless.
4. CNN was difficult to understand as they all spoke over each other which made it hard to interpret.
5. The critic recommends watching C-span as they have unfiltered and unbiased coverage.

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC praised Michelle Obama's speech and called it "perfect" along with many other compliments to her tone and use of certain terms and structure. Moreover, they thought there was a perfect balance in both content and tone and overall portrayed her speech in a positive light.
2. In contrast FOX News portrayed Michelle Obama's speech as essentially a waste of time and boring or dry. Furthermore, the criticized how she did not make many references to the country going as far as to say it was "generic".

# data[].attributes.body
Documentaries will sometimes use celebrities or popular figures (political, entertainment, etc) in their content through interviews or references to persuade the audience.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Repetition - Michelle Obama (0:45)
2. Rhetorical question - Staten Island Protests vs. BLM Protests (1:04)

3. Repetition - Trump's Impeachment video (1:27)

# data[].attributes.body
1. There was a clear and observable contrast between the two reporters' perspective. When reporting on the Staten Island Protests, the reporters were trying to justify the protests. On the other hand, when reporting the BLM protest, the reporters were against it and showed a racist perspective on the protests.

2. The reporters are clearly racists and view the BLM protests as violent or unnecessary.

3. White racists who view the police as always right. They're around 30-50 years old and are close minded.

# data[].attributes.body
1.
The reporters feelings about each of the two issues sounded like they were being bias towards the Staten Island issue, rather than the BLM protests. You can clearly see with the contrast in the reporters tone and speech that they are defending the Staten Island issue, but then with the BLM go against what they just had said about rights, etc., therefore making them hypocrites.
2.
This is maybe because they have issues with race, and will favor one race over the other.
3.
Someone who is a white American and is easily gullible.

# data[].attributes.body
1) The reporters were being hypocritical and bias with their statements towards the Staten Island Protest and BLM Protest.
2) The Staten Island Protests were mostly held by right wing republican people and the Fox News are also right wing so they have this bias to support and defend the protests from Staten Island while they are being blatantly racist when covering the BLM Protests.
3) White privileged right wing racist people are most prone to believing the fake news spread by FOX News.

# data[].attributes.body
1) There was a lot of hypocrisy with the coverage, as they would defend the protestors against covid restrictions, but would criticize the BLM protestors.
2) This is likely because Fox news is a right wing news company, meaning they will defend white people more and be more discriminatory towards African-American people and their causes.
3) The type of person that would be drawn to this perspective would be older white people with far right political perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The coverage was heavily biast towards showing the negatives of the BLM protests and the COVID 19 saftey regulations. They decided to focus on specific stories and incidents that support their views, and tend to ignore any fact or event that apposes their opinions.

2) This can be the result of arrogance amongst the journalists, as they see that only their opinions matter.
3) The target audience of such media coverage is rich and old racist individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Between the news coverage depending on the situation and the political perspective their wing holds on the event in general (right wing) their values of what is right and wrong are unstable and twisted to fit a narrative. Very often in moments of unrest such as the BLM protests they tend to zero in on cases that benefit their narrative instead of looking at the perspective as a whole.  The tone they approach situations becomes hypocritical as seen in the shocking contrast between the lockdown protests and the BLM protests.
2. During this age media has less become a unbiased and informative outlet to get information from regarding daily topics but rather a source of entertainment and as a result the media outlets will do whatever to keep their audience following. This means twisting narratives and in somecases blantantly lying so the audience hears what they want to hear, this results in the political polarization we see today.
3. More outdated and conservative views tend to be more common in older and whiter individuals but lately due to the political polarization this inflamattory content also effects younger audiences too. These political perspectives are everywhere allthough they sometimes are more prominent in certain beliefs. In terms of wealth I believe its more targeted to middle class and up due to common themes invoked such as taking away the suburbs, Fox news is also very popular with evangelical christians.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Each event was described in two different perspectives and opinions depending on the side which the news channel leans towards, unfolding the news in both the citizens perspective, and in the governments view.

2. These media outlets have clear biases that have been proven countless times.

3. This would be older white people with older political views.

# data[].attributes.body
1.C-Span provides all raw footage to news networks.
2. they add graphics above the raw footage
3. a which hunt
4. different perspectives from people on CNN which made it hard for the audience to interpret the information.
5. to not watch it at all.

# data[].attributes.body
1) There was a distinct and noticeable difference in the perspectives of the two reporters. The reporters covering the BLM protests were against it and portrayed negative reactions and comments towards the protest and took a stereotypical view of the protests as they showed bias, whereas when commenting  on the Staten Island Protest, they were explaining the protests and agreed with what is being done.
2) This could have happened because they  might have bias towards some races and cultures and prefer some people over others due to their backgrounds and races.
3) Older people, (usually somewhere between the middle class or higher towards the upper classes) between the ages of mid 20s and 60s.

# data[].attributes.body
1) C-SPAN provides all the footage to the News Networks.
2) Different news channels add their own visual graphics and text over shots.
3) FOX News referred to the Trump impeachment trial as a "witch hunt" and a "scheme".
4) CNN presents multiple perspectives which makes it hard for the audience to comprehend information.
5) The critic recommends to not trust anything on television and people can alternatively read news articles or original C-SPAN footage without added graphics and text.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-span

2. Cable news outlets add graphics and quotes to share their perspective on global events.

3. They described Trump's Impeachment as a "witch hunt."

4. CNN is based on bias and since it's a huge and worldwide known news channel, many people around the world watch their reports on global events. This gives the people an incorrect perspective on the events, one that is purely based on bias.

5. The critic recommends watching C-span or switching off the television and waiting for the following day for the news article from news sources such as the New York Times.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span
2. The add their own graphics and overlays.
3. They referred to it as a 'witch-hunt'.
4. CNN is too biased and has too many people talking and giving their opinions, making it hard to understand what is truly happening.
5. Alternatives include live blogs such as Washington post or New York times, or just watching the raw footage on C-span.

# data[].attributes.body
1) C-  span.

2)  They add headings, subtitles, and various opinions and analysis of journalists commenting on the revived news.

3)Which Hunt

4) CNN provides to many opinions and too many journalists on the topic , getting the viewer lost.

5) Reading online news outlets or simply watching Unfiltered C-Span footage.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span provides all the raw footage to the news anchors.

2. Their own take on the event that are occurring.

3.  It had been referred to as 'witch-hunt'.

4.  Everyone is talking at the same time.

5. The critic recommends watching C-span or switching off the television and waiting for the following day for the news article.

# data[].attributes.body
1) C-span
2) They add their own graphics and texts to their channels/footage
3) Witch hunt
4) Hard to comprehend or understand what is being said as it has many reporters talking in the background.
5) Watch coverage of C-span or waiting and reading for news articles from reliable sources.

# data[].attributes.body
1) C-Span
2) They graphics, narration, additional sources (quite often interviews), they also cut and pick what parts of footage they want.
3) They often invoke 'witchhunt' and 'impeachment scheme' to make a objective process of justics seem like a skewed political event of some sort.
4) CNN can often overload the audience with opinions and often has a bias itself.
5) He suggests reading political articles such as the NewYork Times and the Washington Post and also unfiltered footage from C-Span.

# data[].attributes.body
1.MSNBC's perspective on her speech was supportive, and stated that it was "pitch perfect". They also referenced the positive attributes that her speech conveyed.
2. Fox News perspective was more of a bias perspective explaining first person opinions about the speech such as "wasn't a great speech", or "largely wasted night. This shows that Fox News did not provide factual information about the speech in general unlike MSNBC, rather biased information about the speech.

# data[].attributes.body
1) MSNB's perspective on Michelle Obama's speech is supportive, they describe it as "pitch-perfect" and compliment her by saying that "it could not have gone better for them".
2) On the other hand, FOX News was not pleased with Michelle Obama's speech, they thought that it was "generic", they criticized her for not mentioning the soldiers of the country or the Ivy League schools that she and her husband attended.

# data[].attributes.body
1. MSNBC was very supportive of Michelle Obama and her speech, referring to it as "pitch-perfect" and claiming that "it could not have gone better".
2. Fox was very critical and hostile towards Michelle Obama's speech, referring to it as "generic" and saying that "it was a largely wasted night".

# data[].attributes.body
1. The MSNBC loved Michelle Obama's speech and praised her. They described her speech as "perfect" and the perfect balance between tone and content. They also stated that she made 6 references to the country.

2. On the other hand, Fox news acted as the opposite of MSNBC by criticizing Michelle Obama's speech. Fox news, a news outlet purely based on racism, described Michelle Obama's speech as repetitive and very generic. They also said that it was a largely wasted night.

# data[].attributes.body
1) MSNBC captured the speech as being close to perfect, they quoted various sections of the speech the supported their opinions. They also assessed various aspects of the speech, showing that they were all done in a great manner.

2) Fox News took a negative approach toward her speech, highlighting it as being too "generic". They used similar quotations as MSNBC but implied them in a manner that supports their views "she only mentioned I love my country once" .

# data[].attributes.body
1) Michelle Obama's speech, according to MSNBC (who supported her), was quoted to be 'perfect,' and that stressing on her 'tone' had been excellent. They also said that her speech could not have been done in any better way.
2) Michelle Obama's speech, according to Fox News, was predictable and repeated. This news organization, on the other hand, is well-known for being biased towards 1 party.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The coverage for the anti-mask protests was defensive and understanding and on the other hand, the coverage for BLM was ignorant and misleading. This is a clear example of racism.

2. This Fox News report demonstrates the US political perspective, which is racist and characterize black people as violent and criminals.

3. The type of people that might be drawn to such coverage are white middle aged adults.

# data[].attributes.body
1. C-Span provides all coverage to the news channels

2. Cable news add their own graphics and analysis over the original live footage.

3. "Witch Hunt"

4. With CNN, there are too many people talking at the same time, this makes it difficult to understand what is being said

5. Critics suggests to switch off the tv and become more informed from live blogs from other news sources, such as the New York Times.