This article states that Casey Anthony's defense lawyers want some of the potential evidence thrown out of the case, arguing that it will only be used to make the jury view her in a negative light. Anthony is being charged with murdering her young daughter in 2008.
The article is very sensationalistic; it begins by asking, "Remember the frantic 911 call made by Casey's mom Cindy back in July 2008?" This is sensationalistic and informal and does not give me the impression that this article is reliable news (it is from Fox, so I did not expect different, but it is interesting to see an example of their style of journalism). Furthermore, I had to reread the article twice to try and absorb more facts about the case because by the end of the article I still did not feel that I had a full idea of what the case was about and what the prosecution might argue or what else the defense might be using as evidence. The article did not seem to address any of the "why"s of the case, and only made simple claims about what the defense wanted. They thought that the evidence made Anthony look like an unfit mother, promiscuous girl, etc. and the article did not suggest, or hint, or anything that the reader should see her in any other way.
The lack of a complete story made the article very biased. The phrasing of the article, as well, made it implicit that the only way to think of the defense lawyers' requests were as suspicious activity intended to protect a murderous party girl. Fox included a picture of Anthony with a black man that was apparently taken at a party. The article also referred to her by her first name. I found both things to be suspect and I think the article is painting the picture that the defense was trying to keep from influencing the jury. I think it this article is not only informal (read: unprofessional), but also clearly not "Fair and Balanced News" (Fox's slogan).
No comments:
Post a Comment