David Croteau and William Hoynes,
the authors of this book, are both renowned academic and social commentators in
the areas of sociology of media and culture. Croteau taught as an associate
professor at Virginia Commonwealth University whilst Hoynes is a professor of
sociology at Vasser College, New York. Their published works and extent of
academic careers indicates credibility in this subject matter. In their
publication a key tenet is the concept of promoting diversity and avoiding homogeneity
in the media for the benefit of public interest. The authors suggest the best way
to promote public interest is exposure to a wide range of ideas to allow better
understanding of societal views. To enable this exposure it is suggested that
presentation of ideas outside the boundaries of the ‘norm’ in a variety of
formats and platforms benefits public interest by encouraging public debate.
Further, the authors suggest that a range of ideas should include views that
relate to race, gender, political and ideological perspectives to facilitate
that debate. This is credible because a democratic society champions free
speech and the exchange of ideas. Furthermore, the expansive list of references
used by the authors indicates the extensive amount of research undertaken.
Slater, J. (2012, October 12). The greatest (cheat) of them all. The Courier Mail, p. 22-23.
Jim Slater constructs a well-
supported article outlining Lance Armstrong’s alleged involvement in a doping
conspiracy. Slater, a journalist for respected Queensland newspaper The Courier
Mail, constructs an article which reveals allegations made against Armstrong in
the US Anti-Doping Agency’s report against him. There is less emphasis on
Armstrong being ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and more placed on the accusations
published in the report. Quotes from Armstrong’s manager support his innocence
and are included alongside quotes made by USADA chief executive Travis Tygart
as a stark contrast. Tygart describes Armstrong as having “pressured team mates
to take performance enhancing drugs and to keep quiet about it.” The number of quotes
from those supporting Armstrong’s guilt far outweighs the number proclaiming
his innocence. Both men quoted have strong connections to the case and their
inside knowledge adds credibility to the article. At the conclusion of the
article readers are presented with fifteen claims that were made against
Armstrong in the USADA report. The last impression left on the reader is one of
guilt on Armstrong’s behalf which suggests a bias that is only downplayed due
to brief hints of his innocence. There is a hint of sarcasm in the headline
which also appears intriguing to the reader. This source appears to be credible
due to the presentation of evidence cited directly from the report released by
the USADA and the strong reputation of the publishing newspaper. This in turn
reduces concern about the author’s seeming inexperience. However, unlike David
Kent’s article for Mail Online (cited below), a blatant display of bias is evident
despite Armstrong’s unproven guilt. This is not overly concerning as the
evidence against Armstrong is strong.
Kent, D. (2012, October 14). 'Serial cheat' Armstrong could take lie
detector test to prove innocence. Mail
Online. Retrieved October 16 2012 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2217691/Lance-Armstrong-lie-detector-test.html
This article was written by David Kent for Mail Online, the online version of the Daily Mail. This newspaper is
the United Kingdom’s second most read and is highly regarded amongst the
journalism community. The paper’s accolades being awarded a number of British
Press Awards including the 2012 National Newspaper of the Year. This fact
instills trust in the article’s content. The article is shorter than Slater’s
two page spread (mentioned above) and does not allude to Armstrong’s innocence
or his guilt, instead addressing both possibilities. Armstrong’s lawyer, Tim
Herman, is the sole interviewee and he maintains his client’s innocence
throughout and suggests the possibility of a lie detector test to prove it. Immediately
after these comments are descriptions of Armstrong as a ‘drug-cheat’ made by
the USADA. This back and forth opinion continues throughout the article and
does not attempt to sway the opinion of the reader. Herman’s closing quote, “most people had staked out their position a long time ago
about Lance. There are fans and there are haters,” offers little insight into
the matter, allowing the reader to form an opinion. Whilst this source is
considered credible due to its unbiased nature and publisher’s stellar
reputation, it does not provide any hard hitting evidence against Armstrong and
does not prove his innocence. In comparison to Slater’s article which provides
an extensive update of the mounting evidence against Armstrong, Kent’s article provides
an update on the situation. It simply opens the issue up for discussion within
the public arena and is a story of interest. The image of Armstrong taking a
past drug test adds substance to the article and effectively draws the reader
in through curiosity.
McEwan, B.
(2012, October 18). On ya bike. Ten News.
Retrieved from http://tensport.com.au/video.htm?movideo_m=236528&movideo_p=47596
Channel Ten’s Brad McEwan presents this two minute news
story as part of the Ten News sports report. Ten News is home to a number of
award-winning journalists and McEwan boasts over fifteen years of sports
journalism experience. Viewers can feel an increased confidence in the value
and validity of the story as a result. Unlike the previous two articles cited
which had a primary focus on Armstrong’s guilt or innocence, this story focuses
on his major sponsor, Nike, forfeiting its sponsorship. McEwan reveals the
decision was made by the sporting apparel company after Armstrong’s decision to
step down from his position as chairman of Livestrong, his cancer charity. The
journalist mentions Armstrong’s tarnished reputation, giving the viewer background
information as to why he made the decision. An interview with Livestrong vice-president,
Katherine McLane, further explains the reasons for his decision, adding that
Armstrong felt remaining in his position would jeopardise the charity’s future.
McLane’s close association with Armstrong adds to credibility of the source and
gives the viewer a sense of receiving the ‘inside scoop’. Footage of a 2001
Nike advertisement is shown and McEwan discusses how the latest allegations against
Armstrong completely discredit his promotion of the brand. A quote from Nike is
shown on the screen and states that “(we) have been lied to for the past
decade.” This focus on the effect of the allegations on Armstrong’s sponsors is
refreshing for the viewer as it strays from the typical perspectives of
Armstrong or his fans being affected. Ten News’s decision to focus on the
different perspective shows originality of content and impeccable sourcing in
accessing the interview with Katherine McLane. The interesting variety in
footage was engaging and relevant to the story, adding to the credibility of
this source.
