(skip to 3:30)
On the O’Reilly Factor, Laura
Ingraham emphasizes the federal government’s responsibility to override state
laws legalizing marijuana. In doing so, she does not act as an impartial voice.
In fact, she states outright: “We have an obligation to enforce that [federal]
law. The law is the law.”
Though Ingraham’s claim is true
(see US Attorney General Jenny Durkan’s statement here), she neglects to make
the case for someone who might see it differently. She even brings two guests
onto her show, both attorneys who happen to see the issue the same way she does.
Attorney Anahita Sedaghtfar: “The
feds have an obligation to get in there and ensure their laws are upheld.”
Attorney Steve Greensberg: “You
can’t have, on an issue like this, states individually legislating. . . You can’t
have them doing this. What are they going to do next? A state is going to pass
a law saying, ‘in our state it’s okay to burn the flag.’”
(Side note: Greensberg's comment in and of itself is a horrifying example of framing. He likens the states passing marijuana legislation to states passing anti-American legislation.)
(Side note: Greensberg's comment in and of itself is a horrifying example of framing. He likens the states passing marijuana legislation to states passing anti-American legislation.)
Naturally, as attorneys, it is
their job to spout legal truths. That is not the issue here. Ingraham’s claim,
as aforementioned, was true. It is the lack of an opposing voice that becomes
the problem. She has framed the issue to her own liking by hosting guests who
feel the very same way, in hopes that she would appear to raise validity of her side of the argument. In doing so, she has used gatekeeping by discussing the technically legal side of things, which caters to her view, as opposed to even mentioning the potential benefits of marijuana or reasons why the federal government shouldn't have such jurisdiction.
Ingraham is absolutely correct that the federal government has the ability to step in. However, she should have hosted a
guest with a conflicting opinion on the federal government’s ability to do so. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that in order
to seek truth and report it, the reporter must “support the open exchange of
views, even views they find repugnant” and “give voice to the voiceless;
official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.” Ingraham
fails to do either of these.
Source: Fox News, whose viewers often know less than those who watch no news at all
Motivation: to "inform" viewers
Evidence: cites US Attorney General Jenny Durkan
Logic: The federal government should step in because they have legal jurisdiction.
Left out: an opposing point of view (perhaps someone who feels that the state law should trump the federal law)
Fox and Friends: Pot smokers don't contribute to society
(click image for video)
Marijuana legalization is a breeding ground for horrific puns. On this Fox and Friends segment, we see the use of two idioms, both of which have a negative connotation.
Up in Smoke: to be wasted; to be unsuccessful
Going to Pot: to be damaged or spoilt because of a lack of effort; to go to ruin
Before even watching the segment, it is already clear what the take away message is: pot is bad.
(Going to Pot happens to be the name of the entire series of Fox News' marijuana-related show segments, something we feel is far too biased in language.)
The Fox host interviews Naomi Shaefer Riley, a syndicated columnist. Riley mentioned that in recent interviews with experts for her upcoming column, "Everyone agrees that the people who are going to be smoking it are the people with the fewest responsibilities: the young and the poor."
By definition, Riley's job as a columnist is to choose a side and convince others of its "truth." Upon reading the column she referenced to throughout the interview (found here), it is plain to see that she feels marijuana is danger to society. The two "experts" she interviewed were chosen to solidify her viewpoint. She failed to include an opposing voice.
After listening to Riley speak for a couple of minutes, the Fox host starts his next set of remarks by agreeing with her ("That's a really good point.") rather than offering rebuttals to any of her anti-marijuana claims, an example of agenda-setting. He is supplying us with plenty of things to think about, as long as they agree with his overall message (pot is bad). The entire segment fails to address anything positive about the drug.
Motivation: to "inform" viewers
Evidence: cites US Attorney General Jenny Durkan
Logic: The federal government should step in because they have legal jurisdiction.
Left out: an opposing point of view (perhaps someone who feels that the state law should trump the federal law)
Fox and Friends: Pot smokers don't contribute to society
(click image for video)
Marijuana legalization is a breeding ground for horrific puns. On this Fox and Friends segment, we see the use of two idioms, both of which have a negative connotation.
Up in Smoke: to be wasted; to be unsuccessful
Going to Pot: to be damaged or spoilt because of a lack of effort; to go to ruin
Before even watching the segment, it is already clear what the take away message is: pot is bad.
(Going to Pot happens to be the name of the entire series of Fox News' marijuana-related show segments, something we feel is far too biased in language.)
The Fox host interviews Naomi Shaefer Riley, a syndicated columnist. Riley mentioned that in recent interviews with experts for her upcoming column, "Everyone agrees that the people who are going to be smoking it are the people with the fewest responsibilities: the young and the poor."
A Pew Research Center survey (2006) asked interviewees what they think about smoking marijuana. Though it is true that the young are more likely to feel it is morally acceptable or not a moral issue, those who were in the <$30,000 income bracket were actually more likely to see smoking marijuana as morally wrong. We would be interested to see where Riley got her information or if she was using selective perception to define the demographics of marijuana users.
A second Pew Research Center survey asked interviewees if they had actually tried marijuana. Those in the <$30,000 income bracket were reported less likely to have tried marijuana. The young, however, were most likely to have tried it. As age increased, usage decreased. It should also be considered that many of those in older age brackets who have "ever" tried marijuana could have tried it when they were younger. It's safe to say that Riley was right in insinuating that the young tend to smoke marijuana more than the old, but she is wrong if she was trying to imply that it is rare or infrequent among those who are older.
By definition, Riley's job as a columnist is to choose a side and convince others of its "truth." Upon reading the column she referenced to throughout the interview (found here), it is plain to see that she feels marijuana is danger to society. The two "experts" she interviewed were chosen to solidify her viewpoint. She failed to include an opposing voice.
After listening to Riley speak for a couple of minutes, the Fox host starts his next set of remarks by agreeing with her ("That's a really good point.") rather than offering rebuttals to any of her anti-marijuana claims, an example of agenda-setting. He is supplying us with plenty of things to think about, as long as they agree with his overall message (pot is bad). The entire segment fails to address anything positive about the drug.
He then goes on to say, “It makes you passive and boring and really self-focused. In
the middle of a recession, do we really need more people who are lazy?” With this, he illustrates it as something only consumed by unproductive members of society. In fact, there are dozens of productive (political standpoints aside) members of society who have smoked marijuana:
- President Barack Obama
- President George W. Bush
- David Letterman
- Sarah Palin
- Maya Angelou
See a second list of notable marijuana users here.
Now, the current consumption of these listed figures is another matter entirely. Let it be known, we are in no way attempting to say that anyone who uses marijuana will end up as our 48th U.S. president. This is simply our attempt to illustrate the fact that marijuana use does not definitively define someone as worthless or unproductive.
Source: Fox News, whose viewers often know less than those who watch no news at all
Motivation: to "inform" viewers
Evidence: Riley says she spoke to experts, but doesn't cite names or great specifics
Logic: Marijuana use, they say, makes you lazy and we don't need more lazy people.
Left out: an opposing viewpoint (perhaps someone who things marijuana is beneficial/makes you more productive)
Gretchen Carlson on Fox and Friends: Children should not be given medical marijuana
(click image for video)
Gretchen Carlson (of Fox and Friends) covered a story about a 7-year-old Leukemia patient whose parents choose to ease her symptoms with cannabis oil pills. The purpose of the clip, it seems, is to compare the long-term and short-term effects of marijuana. However, Carlson not once commends the drug for its short-term potential; rather, she spends the clip baiting her guest into dwelling on its long-term dangers.
Now, the current consumption of these listed figures is another matter entirely. Let it be known, we are in no way attempting to say that anyone who uses marijuana will end up as our 48th U.S. president. This is simply our attempt to illustrate the fact that marijuana use does not definitively define someone as worthless or unproductive.
Motivation: to "inform" viewers
Evidence: Riley says she spoke to experts, but doesn't cite names or great specifics
Logic: Marijuana use, they say, makes you lazy and we don't need more lazy people.
Left out: an opposing viewpoint (perhaps someone who things marijuana is beneficial/makes you more productive)
Gretchen Carlson on Fox and Friends: Children should not be given medical marijuana
A d(click image for video)
Gretchen Carlson (of Fox and Friends) covered a story about a 7-year-old Leukemia patient whose parents choose to ease her symptoms with cannabis oil pills. The purpose of the clip, it seems, is to compare the long-term and short-term effects of marijuana. However, Carlson not once commends the drug for its short-term potential; rather, she spends the clip baiting her guest into dwelling on its long-term dangers.
Carlson makes little effort to conceal her disapproval. Though seemingly subtle, her word choice plays a major role in shaping the presentation of the story:
In doing so, Carlson dismisses the mother's claims, simplifies the argument and leads her doctor guest into discussing potential long-term effects.
Furthermore, a recurring issue we've seen in many Fox news clips is the lack the of debate. This segment only features a single doctor who happens to, once again, have views that align with that of the Fox host. To be "fair and balanced," as Fox News claims to be, Carlson should have brought in a second guest, preferably a credentialed source (so the two guest voices would be seen as similarly intelligent), who would agree with the mother's decision to supply her daughter with cannabis oil pills.
As is, Carlson's clip is framing at its finest. It lacks a major point of view.
During the segment, a headline/subhead ran that read "Cannabis Controversy: Doctors Warn of Long-Term Side Effects" coupled with a large image of the 7-year-old in question, an obvious attempt to tug at the emotions. The only text mention of pot as a possible aid is coupled with an image of the girl's parents (who are far less cute, if we do say so ourselves):
Carlson accompanied her final remarks with an eye roll: "the little girl actually said it makes her feel silly. Imagine that.”
Carlson makes some obvious points but fails to let both sides speak.
- "She claims it's for her own good. But is it?"
- Use of the word "claims" implies the mother has no evidence to support her beliefs.
- "I want you to listen to the mom because she's going to defend why she's giving these pills to her sick child."
- Use of the word "defend" implies there is a necessity for justification.
- Use of the phrase "the mom" is impersonal and discourages viewer connection to her.
In doing so, Carlson dismisses the mother's claims, simplifies the argument and leads her doctor guest into discussing potential long-term effects.
Furthermore, a recurring issue we've seen in many Fox news clips is the lack the of debate. This segment only features a single doctor who happens to, once again, have views that align with that of the Fox host. To be "fair and balanced," as Fox News claims to be, Carlson should have brought in a second guest, preferably a credentialed source (so the two guest voices would be seen as similarly intelligent), who would agree with the mother's decision to supply her daughter with cannabis oil pills.
As is, Carlson's clip is framing at its finest. It lacks a major point of view.
During the segment, a headline/subhead ran that read "Cannabis Controversy: Doctors Warn of Long-Term Side Effects" coupled with a large image of the 7-year-old in question, an obvious attempt to tug at the emotions. The only text mention of pot as a possible aid is coupled with an image of the girl's parents (who are far less cute, if we do say so ourselves):
Carlson accompanied her final remarks with an eye roll: "the little girl actually said it makes her feel silly. Imagine that.”
Carlson makes some obvious points but fails to let both sides speak.
Source: Fox News, whose viewers often know less than those who watch no news at all
Motivation: to "inform" viewers
Evidence: Disapproval from a doctor (who, by the way, has never met the patient)
Logic: If marijuana has long-term effects, how are these parents getting away with administering to their child?
Left out: an opposing viewpoint (perhaps a doctor who has worked directly with the 7-year-old)
Motivation: to "inform" viewers
Evidence: Disapproval from a doctor (who, by the way, has never met the patient)
Logic: If marijuana has long-term effects, how are these parents getting away with administering to their child?
Left out: an opposing viewpoint (perhaps a doctor who has worked directly with the 7-year-old)
--
Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor: The MPP wants you to get high
Bill O'Reilly skeptically reads through a list of the "Top 10 Most Influential Marijuana Users" provided by the Marijuana Policy Project, who O'Reilly sarcastically says "devotes its life to try and convince you to get stoned and inebriated. That's a nice cause."
However, the MPP defines its mission as:
O'Reilly then tells his co-host, "This is another effort, Carlson, to convince Americans that marijuana is just a good thing. And all these prohibitions are terrible. Let's get everybody high and we'll all be better off."
While it is true the MPP doesn't feel the prohibitions have been successful ("Marijuana prohibition has failed. It's time for a new approach, and MPP is leading the way"), he is once again falsely claiming that the group wants to "get everybody high."
After turning it over to Carlson, she says to O'Reilly: "I believe like you do that marijuana use leads to harder drug use."
However, the jury is still out on this one. Several studies seem to point to truth for both sides of this argument:
Source: Fox News, whose viewers often know less than those who watch no news at all
Motivation: to "inform" viewers
Evidence: ...none, really...
Logic:Why would you listen to a group of pot smoking hippies?
Left out: an opposing viewpoint (perhaps someone from the MPP)
Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor: The MPP wants you to get high
Bill O'Reilly skeptically reads through a list of the "Top 10 Most Influential Marijuana Users" provided by the Marijuana Policy Project, who O'Reilly sarcastically says "devotes its life to try and convince you to get stoned and inebriated. That's a nice cause."
However, the MPP defines its mission as:
And goes on to say in its 'About' page:
- Increase public support for non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.
- Identify and activate supporters of non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.
- Change state laws to reduce or eliminate penalties for the medical and non-medical use of marijuana.
- Gain influence in Congress.
"Because MPP believes that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is prison, we focus on removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, with a particular emphasis on making marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors."No where in its mission does it say it hopes to increase marijuana use among Americans; rather, they hope to gain support of new marijuana policies. Obviously, the group believes legalizing marijuana would be more help than harm, but no where do they mention (not even on their "2013 Strategic Plan" page) any underground effort to boost marijuana use.
O'Reilly then tells his co-host, "This is another effort, Carlson, to convince Americans that marijuana is just a good thing. And all these prohibitions are terrible. Let's get everybody high and we'll all be better off."
While it is true the MPP doesn't feel the prohibitions have been successful ("Marijuana prohibition has failed. It's time for a new approach, and MPP is leading the way"), he is once again falsely claiming that the group wants to "get everybody high."
After turning it over to Carlson, she says to O'Reilly: "I believe like you do that marijuana use leads to harder drug use."
However, the jury is still out on this one. Several studies seem to point to truth for both sides of this argument:
- A 2006 study by professor Yasmin Hurd of the Mount Senai School of Medicine revealed that when comparing two groups of lab rats, the group that had been exposed to marijuana wasn't more likely to approach provided heroin. They were more likely to abuse the heroin, but the idea that marijuana served as a "gateway" seemed to be squashed.
- A 2012 study from the Yale University School of Medicine claimed that "those who had used marijuana were 2.5 times more likely than those their age who abstained to later dabble in prescription drugs."
- A 2006 study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 22.4 percent of those they observed who used marijuana did not display the "gateway sequence, thereby demonstrating that this pattern is not invariant in drug-using youths."
Source: Fox News, whose viewers often know less than those who watch no news at all
Motivation: to "inform" viewers
Evidence: ...none, really...
Logic:Why would you listen to a group of pot smoking hippies?
Left out: an opposing viewpoint (perhaps someone from the MPP)
