Eng102 Professor ________ _________ 9/22/16 To Click or not to Click? Politics in the Age of TV vs Online Media, and the Seductive Dangers of Clickbait While it’s generally accepted that print media has been going out of style for a while now (“What’s black and white and read all over?” Jimmy Kimmel joked at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner. “Nothing, as it turns out” (Kimmel)), television news media hasn’t yet been fully overtaken by online news. But things aren’t looking good. PEW Research Center points out that, through the course of this election year, 48% of American adults got their news from television sources, while 34% informed themselves through online sources—including both online publications and social media feeds (“Online News on the Rise, says Pew”, 2). Compare that to the last presidential election, when 62% of the same group got their news from TV and only 18% said their primary source was online (ibid). It might be easy to dismiss the rise in online news as being the natural result of online media in general, but to do so might overlook the special relationship between these two media and their audiences. So let’s examine: do TV and online media tailor their messages differently? Do online sources court specific demographics of readers who might not otherwise get their news from the internet? Or is there simply a new generation of consumers who prefer the active experience of a website? To begin looking for an answer to these questions, let’s examine the first two weeks of September 2016, and the sharp contrast between The Lead with Jake Tapper and online newspaper Slate’s coverage of the day’s stories. Part of this contrast might have something to do with who’s tuning in/signing on. The Lead’s audience is well-documented: according to Nielsen, the median age of Tapper’s viewers is 43, with particularly strong showings in the 36-55-year-old target audience (Nielsen Data). Further, The Lead’s audience overwhelmingly is college-educated, makes >$65,000, and tends to live in suburban areas (ibid). This isn’t entirely different from the overall audience data from CNN (on which The Lead airs), and is almost identical to that of Tapper’s lead-in, Anderson Cooper 360 (ibid). Slate’s audience, on the other hand, comprises a younger crowd (their highest demographic by far is 18-34 year olds), mostly single/independently wealthy, and lives predominantly in cities (Alexa Metrics), What does this mean? It means a clear divide in who’s consuming which; The Lead draws in middle-upper class, middle-aged family audiences (who are “politically neutral” according to Nielsen), while Slate attracts single, upwardly mobile, and self-identified “liberal” city-dwellers. But the real question is why? Why such a divide? Are these just natural consumer tendencies on the part of the audience, or does the content (and style) of the two media account for who they’re drawing in? At first glance, it might seem as though the content of these t ...

1. Eng102
Professor ________
_________
9/22/16
To Click or not to Click?
Politics in the Age of TV vs Online Media, and the Seductive
Dangers of Clickbait
While it’s generally accepted that print media has been
going out of style for a while now (“What’s black and white and
read all over?” Jimmy Kimmel joked at the 2011 White House
Correspondents Dinner. “Nothing, as it turns out” (Kimmel)),
television news media hasn’t yet been fully overtaken by online
news. But things aren’t looking good. PEW Research Center
points out that, through the course of this election year, 48% of
American adults got their news from television sources, while
34% informed themselves through online sources—including
both online publications and social media feeds (“Online News
on the Rise, says Pew”, 2). Compare that to the last presidential
election, when 62% of the same group got their news from TV
and only 18% said their primary source was online (ibid). It
might be easy to dismiss the rise in online news as being the
natural result of online media in general, but to do so might
overlook the special relationship between these two media and
their audiences. So let’s examine: do TV and online media tailor
their messages differently? Do online sources court specific
demographics of readers who might not otherwise get their news
from the internet? Or is there simply a new generation of
consumers who prefer the active experience of a website? To
begin looking for an answer to these questions, let’s examine
the first two weeks of September 2016, and the sharp contrast
between The Lead with Jake Tapper and online newspaper
Slate’s coverage of the day’s stories.
Part of this contrast might have something to do with
who’s tuning in/signing on. The Lead’s audience is well-

2. documented: according to Nielsen, the median age of Tapper’s
viewers is 43, with particularly strong showings in the 36-55-
year-old target audience (Nielsen Data). Further, The Lead’s
audience overwhelmingly is college-educated, makes >$65,000,
and tends to live in suburban areas (ibid). This isn’t entirely
different from the overall audience data from CNN (on which
The Lead airs), and is almost identical to that of Tapper’s lead-
in, Anderson Cooper 360 (ibid). Slate’s audience, on the other
hand, comprises a younger crowd (their highest demographic by
far is 18-34 year olds), mostly single/independently wealthy,
and lives predominantly in cities (Alexa Metrics), What does
this mean? It means a clear divide in who’s consuming which;
The Lead draws in middle-upper class, middle-aged family
audiences (who are “politically neutral” according to Nielsen),
while Slate attracts single, upwardly mobile, and self-identified
“liberal” city-dwellers. But the real question is why? Why such
a divide? Are these just natural consumer tendencies on the part
of the audience, or does the content (and style) of the two media
account for who they’re drawing in?
At first glance, it might seem as though the content of
these two sources doesn’t clash enough to separate audiences.
Over the course of two weeks, many of their stories in fact
overlap. For example, on Monday, September 5th, 2016,
Tapper’s lead story was about Labor
Day being the “kick-off day” for the fall campaign season.
Panelists discuss Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls, but also
Donald Trump’s closing the gap (“The Lead 9/5/16”). Slate, too,
reports on the campaign, and puts particular emphasis on “the
trouble Democrats will find themselves in if they don’t secure a
comfortable lead going into the upcoming debates” (Dickerson).
It’s unsurprising, of course, that both would cover the election
(most media outlets currently are), but it’s notable that each
source’s non-election-related stories also coincide. For
example, both sources’ September 7th coverage reports on
President Obama’s last day attending the G8 Summit (many
right-leaning outlets, such as nearly all programming on Fox

3. News that same evening, highlight North Korea’s missile tests
rather than mentioning the President (“O’Reilly Factor 9/7/16”,
et al)). The lead story in both outlets on September 12th is
Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia-induced collapse at a rally, and
likewise both outlets dedicate their September 13th coverage to
Donald Trump’s suggestion that Clinton has been concealing a
“secret illness” from the public (“The Lead 9/13/16”; “Medical
Records Won’t…”).
And while the content of these two sources suggests that
they should for all intents and purposes have a clear overlap in
audiences (since they have such a clear overlap in stories), the
form, presentation, and prioritization of this content indicates
they’re aggressively playing to particular psychographics.
Examples: Tapper’s aforementioned discussion of the
candidates’ poll numbers includes conservative panelist
Kayleigh McInerney and left-wing commentator Van Jones
(both of whom announce which candidate they back from the
opening of the segment). The segment consists of Tapper
attempting to play the even-handed moderator in a left/right
debate (he asks McInerney, “Doesn’t your candidate need to
begin pivoting into a ‘more presidential’ general election mode?
Is that ever going to happen?” and also asks Jones, “Isn’t it fair
to say that Hillary Clinton has a legitimate public trust
problem?” (“The Lead 9/5/16”). His coverage of Trump’s
comments on Clinton’s health, as well, includes a binary
discussion of the topic (this time reformed Republican and now-
Clinton supporter Ana Navarro vs. (again) McInerney, who must
be making absolute bank if she’s getting paid on commission for
this). In other words Tapper, no matter the audience’s
assumptions about his personal political allegiances, is at least
attempting to present the appearance of bipartisanship, which
arguably accounts for his politically neutral audience.
Contrast that with Slate’s own coverage of those same
events. First off, the magazine has been ousted as a left-leaning
publication (“Let’s Rank the Media…”). Secondly, the editors
themselves would likely agree with this characterization, as

4. they themselves have openly admitted to favoring Democratic
candidates (“Slate Votes: It’s Kerry by a Landslide”). In that
context, it’s easy to understand the lens through which the
editors and journalists filter these headlines: their article about
Clinton’s poll numbers reassures their liberal readers that the
Secretary’s lead will undoubtedly widen as her opponent faces
the upcoming scrutiny of a general election. The publication
notes, “Secretary Clinton has all but secured the presidency at
this point, having slipped behind Mr. Trump’s numbers only
once in the fourteen months since the candidates announced
their campaigns” (Dickerson, “Clinton Maintains…”). And their
coverage of Clinton’s pneumonia comes with the sub-headline
“The ‘concern’ over Clinton’s pneumonia is about politics, not
medical precision” (Matthews). Slate demonstrably prefers to
wear its opinions on its sleeve rather than present a Tapper-
style front of even-handedness, which no doubt plays to its
aforementioned readership’s political tastes.
But there’s another possible (related) reason for the divide
between these two audiences. It isn’t just that each source’s
political allegiances (or lack thereof) match up with their
demographics’, or that they’re outspoken about where those
allegiances lie. It’s that these stories, regardless of their filter
or content or format, are presented as the capital-T Truth by
both outlets. Tapper presents the news of the day as though
every headline really did have two equal sides—the format
never changes, regardless of the day’s news. If you are (as the
above Nielsen demographics suggest) the kind of viewer
inclined to believe that there are “two sides to every story”,
your worldview is unlikely to be changed by The Lead’s
presentation of the world as a place where liberals and
conservatives confront each other openly with prepared talking
points. Likewise, Slate makes no claims to neutrality, but their
left-leaning views aren’t presented as left-leaning. The fact that
Republicans are wrongheaded on the issues of the day is
unilaterally presented as just that: a fact. Slate, in other words,
tells its readership that news sources that don’t take a stance are

5. in effect taking a stance, and that their (Slate’s) decision to lay
their cards on the table makes them honest, not partisan.
Both outlets’ function amounts to confirmation bias. The
readers reading and the viewers viewing don’t do so in an effort
to inform as much as to reassure themselves. Of course, Slate
(and online media in general) takes this one step further by
allowing users themselves to decide “what’s important” by
letting them click on whatever articles they want (as opposed to
The Lead and TV in general’s determination of which story is—
here it comes—“the lead”). Whether consumers are actually
learning from this new, online experience or simply remaining
pacified in their complacency remains to be seen. But it does
seem clear that, since there seems to be no sign of online
media’s popularity slowing down, the only way to beat our
biases is to remain conscious of them.
Structure Guide For Essay One.
The layout for your essay should look like this; please use it as
a guide and stay as close to this outline as possible:
I. Introduction.
A. Begin by establishing why your topic is important to a
contemporary reader (ex: Last year, print newspapers hit a
record low for sales, leading many journalists to assume that
they’ll soon be extinct). Follow this with support for the claim
you are making about the issue’s relevance.
B. Transition into a discussion of the two media you chose.
1. Name one of your choices, the medium, the outlet, and your
reason for choosing it (ex: The biggest competitor for print
news these days is online journalism, and the Huffington Post is
one of the most widely-read online publications, so let’s use
that as one example).
2. Name the other, and do likewise (ex: Of course, in order to
recognize online journalism’s possible triumph over print, we
should look at The New York Times in relief against HuffPo’s

6. coverage to get a sense of the difference between the two).
C. Follow this by announcing your project itself, including the
dates and subjects (For the last week of August in 2017, I
looked at each publication’s coverage of issues such as the
border wall, neo-Nazi rallies, and the right to protest).
D. Finally, give an academic thesis question, letting us know
what you’ll be exploring in the essay (ex: The coverage begs the
question: are online publications able to produce faster
coverage, or are they sacrificing substance for “being first”?)
II. Audience
A. Transition into your next paragraph by making it clear why
you’re discussing the audience (ex: Before we can answer the
question of which publication delivers more accurate news, we
first need to look at who their delivering that news to).
B. Go into the audience descriptions of each medium.
1. Outline the first one’s audience by stating the
a. Demographic and
b. Psychographic
2. Then state the second one’s audience by also stating the
a. Demographic and
b. Psychographic
C. Include here a brief (3-4 sentence) discussion as to why these
specific audiences might be drawn toward those specific
publications/TV shows/websites (ex: “One reason why
Huffington Post tends to draw a younger, more liberal audience
is that statistically, millennials get the majority of their news
online, according to…”; “Generally, online periodicals have a
stated political slant, and audiences can tailor their news to
whatever they personally believe by seeking it out, which
accounts for Huffington Post’s larger liberal base…” etc)
III. Medium #1
A. Here, introduce one of the topics both of your choices
discussed (ex: one of the top stories during the week of this
project was the border wall).
1. Introduce the article on the topic, and give several
specific quotes from the piece in question—the headline too, if

7. it’s relevant.
2. Follow this with your analysis, both of what the piece
discusses and what you feel it’s left out (ex: As you can see, in
the Huffington Post’s article, the author assumes from the first
word that the border wall will not be put in place)
3. Include whatever sources the piece uses (ex: Many of
the article’s sources link to other articles on the same website,
which doesn’t suggest a broad base of information…).
B. Then, introduce an alternate topic with a smooth transition
(ex: And before you assume that this issue is the only one with
a particularly partisan slant, let’s look at the other big issue of
the week: the right to protest).
1. Repeat the steps from above here.
2. Here
3. And here.
C. Conclude this paragraph with an informed point about what
you’ve stated above (ex: It’s fair to say that the publication has
at least a slightly left-of-center agenda, as most of the
statements they make don’t come from evidence—at least not
evidence presented in the article itself).
IV. Medium #2
A. Here, transition into your next choice by acknowledging
that you’ll be discussing the same topics, but through a
different publication/website/TV show (ex: That said, the very
same topics were handled quite differently by the print source,
The New York Times).
1. Again, as above, include direct quotes as you discuss the
issues, and repeat the above steps here
2. Here
3. Here
B. Here
1. Here
2. Here
3. And here, but be sure to continue comparing the
two, rather than just restating (ex: Unlike the Huffington Post’s
coverage, NYT doesn’t immediately take the position that

8. protesting confederate statues is “right” and that the statues
themselves are “wrong”; in fact, the Times resists taking any
position whatsoever, except for its op-ed page, which allows
room for both sides).
V. Conclusion
A. Come to a conclusion about the relationship between
the audience and the source. Is the audience, in your opinion,
aware of any biases? Why do you think that? Is the audience
demanding slanted coverage, or does the audience believe the
slant they’re told and thus unable to demand anything?
Hello all,
For your first major essay, we’ll be putting to use our many
discussions regarding media and politics from class by
specifically analyzing how politics gets discussed in aggregate.
To be clearer, what you’ll be doing for this assignment is the
following:
1. Please choose two of the following three media: print
journalism, television news, online periodicals.
2. Please then choose one specific publication/TV show/website
from each of your chosen media (ex: Breitbart for online
periodicals and Anderson Cooper 360 for television news).
3. For one week straight, look at an issue that both sources
discuss (As an example, on Tuesday, both Breitbart and Cooper
reported on the US’s new policy to remain in Afghanistan; on
Wednesday, both Breitbart and Cooper discussed Trump’s
Phoenix rally.)
4. Consider the approach to each story as they were discussed.
Did either source display implicit or explicit bias (as discussed
in class, remember that this does not mean “opinion” or
“judgment” or even “inference”; this means that the source had
an agenda beyond the pursuit of truth)? For example, Breitbart’s
reporting on Trump’s rally includes the headline “Watch: Antifa
Leftist Protester Takes Pepperball in the Groin”; Cooper’s show
began with a sixteen-minute long fact check of the president’s

9. speech itself. Also consider: what is the format of these media?
(Example: Breitbart’s coverage of the rally is mainly a series of
people’s Twitter feeds and short responses; Cooper’s show
opens with the nightly fact check titled “Keeping Them
Honest,” followed by a panel discussion and then a one-one-one
interview).
5. Did either source provide support for whatever information
they were reporting? If not, what claims did they make to
justify reporting the story? If so, what kind of support? Were
their sources reliable/available? (Example: again, Breitbart’s
reporting is largely blog-style op-ed reporting, or supported
mainly by tweets when and if there is a source; Cooper often
uses the president’s own words in video clips, or else asks
establishment politicians or political commentators to weigh
in).
6. Finally, research and consider the demographic for each
source (this information is readily available from the sources
listed on D2L under the “Materials” section. Please see me if
you have trouble locating them, but we’ll be going over them
thoroughly in class as well).
The ideal result of this research will be your rhetorical analysis
of the news and its audience; what you should be looking to
answer is the question:
How do the speakers in a given medium shift the tone and
content of their message in order to reach different audiences?
The structure sheet—also provided for you in the “Materials”
section on D2L—will give you a detailed account of how to
build your argument fluidly, but a cursory breakdown of this
essay’s structure is:
Begin with an introduction describing the two media you’ve
chosen, why you’ve chosen these (rather than something else),
and the dates during which you recorded their stories.
Follow up with a paragraph researching the target audiences for
these outlets. Information on what types of audiences consume
these sources is, again, readily available, but we’ll have a
research day in class wherein I will assist you in finding this

10. data if help is needed. Discuss here the political leanings of the
audience, the age range, the income level, and any other
relevant information that cues you in to the audience’s
worldview.
This should be followed by a paragraph discussing your first
chosen media outlet. Here, use the above demographic
information to discuss how the story of the day is approached
by the chosen medium. Also discuss any bias or agenda the
outlet might have, and what evidence you have for said bias.
(Note: evidence for bias means actual, cited, sourced evidence;
you cannot simply suggest, for instance, that a source is biased
against Hillary Clinton, and then use as your evidence the fact
that the source criticized her—this is not evidence of bias).
Likewise, use the next paragraph to discuss the other medium
you’ve chosen, and examine it the same way as above.
Finally, come to an academic conclusion about the relationship
between the audience and the message. Is the audience well-
informed after consuming this news? Is one medium more
reliable than the other? Is the reporting biased? Is the audience
subject to confirmation bias, even if the source is reliable?
Please have your first draft completed by September 8th. All
drafts, rough and final, should be typed, double-spaced, in 12-
point, Times New Roman font. All citations should be in MLA
format. Carefully proof-read your essays before turning them in
to workshop, and proof-read even more carefully before turning
them in to me (the Think Tank is a great place to go for outside
help, but of course I’m always available if you need assistance
here).
Any questions, please contact me, or visit me during office
hours!
Good luck!
--T