The Pipeline Isn't the Only Thing Being Denied

Before checking out a news story, I completely expected Fox to be very emotional and explicit in its writing, and my other outlet to be very composed and sane, but not without opinion. I was extremely surprised to find a bland and uneventful article on the Fox side, and an opinioned side for the other.

 

For my story, I chose the Dakota Pipeline reroute. I decided to compare Fox News and CNN. For starters, the Fox story's link had in bold: PIPELINE DENIED. I thought, this has to be good. "Denied"  is a pretty heavy word, so I wonder what they are thinking about this. What I realized too late was how tiny the link and picture was on the website compared to the other headlines. The title of the article described it as a "block," which is typically used in the case of not letting something happen. Connotatively, I think of something that isn't allowed, when you wanted it to happen. That can be some exposure to their opinion. I began reading the article, and wasn't nearly as entertained as I planned to be. There was nothing colorful or emotional. All that were reported were the facts. I was bored. Quite frankly, I think that this is because they lost. Fox is rather Republican, and the fact that the protesters and the Native Americans won is enough to make them change their tone in writing. They didn't want to make it into a huge deal, because it is not what they wanted to happen. What did intrigue me were the quotes provided. The only quotes in the article were talking about the concerns and tension that followed the stopping of the pipeline, and I know that wasn't on accident. We can tell from this, that Fox did not get its way. Other than that, it was shockingly dry.

 

On CNN, this was the biggest headline out of all the website. It had in bold: PIPELINE STOPPED. The title of the article was "Dakota Pipeline to be re-routed." It wasn't blocked, or denied, but it was re-routed. That was the most neutral way to put it. As expected, CNN reported the facts, stating both sides to the problem. I noticed that CNN quoted Bernie Sanders, a democrat (of course for the con side) and Kevin Cramer, a republican in the House of Representatives. Kevin Cramer said, "I hoped even a lawless president wouldn't continue to ignore the rule of law. However, it was becoming increasingly clear he was punting the issue down the road. Today's unfortunate decision sends a very chilling signal to others who want to build infrastructure in this country. Roads, bridges, transmission lines, pipelines, wind farms and water lines will be very difficult, if not impossible, to build when criminal behavior is rewarded this way." Criminal behavior?! Cramer sounded ridiculous, and this news station knows it. I think CNN chose to quote this man on purpose, because of so absurd he sounded. CNN knows who it is talking to, so it must satisfy its viewers in this way.

 

I have realized that each article and the content in it is specifically formulated and edited with great care to inflict the opinions on its viewers. Not only is the pipeline being denied, but our personal thoughts and our own opinions are denied as well.