Starting Analysis – Introducing The New York Times!
Mihika G -
Hi all, welcome back to my blog 🥸 I’m excited to announce that the actual article analysis has officially begun! Please please, hold the applause ✋ Some updates:
- I have decided to move forward with The New York Times as my sole media source. I paid for a subscription and everything! This is for a few reasons: first, as I mentioned briefly in my last post, I think that, given the limited scope, focusing on one specific outlet would allow for a deeper analysis, and my results/conclusions will be more refined. Second, according to this lovely study, The New York Times was by far the MOST viewed news site in the U.S. between July and December 2024 – this timeframe aligns perfectly with the period I am analyzing.
- Specifically, within the NYT, I will be analyzing articles published under the Opinion section of the website. I made this choice because I think it would serve my purpose to examine how bias can make its appearance in publications where objectivity is not necessarily required, especially when posted still on an “official” news site.
- I created basic guidelines for article selection. The articles I will be including in my analysis must, first off, be written between 21 July 2024 (the date Kamala Harris announced her candidacy in the 2024 election as Joe Biden’s replacement nominee) and 5 November 2025 (election day). Then, the article title/headline must include the candidates name (Harris/Kamala Harris, Trump/Donald Trump). This should ensure my research is well-guided.
I am aware that the NYT is definitely left-leaning. In fact, this media bias checker confirms that the NYT is actually pretty far down the left side of the political spectrum. I think this actually is better for my research, as I have already begun to find evidence of gender bias (not fully sorted and developed, but I’m feeling pretty confident about it). Of the eleven articles I’ve scanned, all written in July 2024 post-announcement, six focus heavily on her personality, energy, and “good vibes” (direct quote from one article). Although the left presents itself as more progressive, especially being the party to have had two women as official presidential candidates, the gender bias from this side’s media is prevalent still.
In coming weeks, I seek to continue my analysis of the articles of the NYT for Kamala Harris, then shift to Donald Trump, in order to effectively make comparisons. I am working with the media coordinator of the League of Women Voters, Metropolitan Phoenix (my offsite placement) for input on what forms of bias I can look for, beyond gender marking, which is more easily identified.
Well, that’s all for today. I hope you guys enjoyed, because I know I did. Like and subscribe for more updates on the journey, and stay tuned for next week’s content!
Comments:
All viewpoints are welcome but profane, threatening, disrespectful, or harassing comments will not be tolerated and are subject to moderation up to, and including, full deletion.