Gov’t Paper

People each have different personalities that others like and dislike about them. These individuals can be funny or serious; nice or a jerk; a talker or a listener. All this makes up a person and who they are. A person's personality is similar to a news program; sometimes they can be biased and unreliable; other times they are spot-on and trustworthy. Hardball and O'Reilly are both news programs that display their news differently. While both commentators give their opinions on the subjects, Chris Matthews pushes his opinion more than O'Reilly. During times where Matthews has guest speakers, he always tends to argue with the one that does not agree with his opinions; he pushes his ideas into his opponents' head, not letting them express their thoughts. Even though he refuses to let one's opinions out, Matthews allows the other, who agrees with him, to talk. In other words, he is hard-headed and believes his opinion is right. On one occasion, Jonathan Alters, gave his opinion about how the Republicans are attempting to woo the Latinos' votes, Matthews shuts him up by talking over him, basically yelling. Alters looks as if he was about to burst into tears. On the other hand, O'Reilly tends to ask for his guest speakers' view first, then adding his own. He actually allows them to finish their views, seeing their points out, instead of cutting them off. O'Reilly and Chris Matthews both have different perspectives in the topics that were discussed. O'Reilly leans towards the liberal side, while Matthews is a conservative. For example, O'Reilly notices how everything is based on race, and believes no one should be judged by that. However, it seems that Matthews only wants the Republicans to focus their targets on the white people and not Latinos. In one specific topic that both commentators discussed, the Zimmerman trial, it seems each were on one or the other sides. Chris Matthews argues that Zimmerman acted on self-defense, while O'Reilly gave both sides, but showed sympathy towards Trayvon Martin's family. O'Reilly has more facts, making it seem like his show was a news' show, while Hardball with Chris Matthews is all about argumentative opinions. O'Reilly adds statistics to show subjects and backs each topic with facts. For example, there was a segment about the Arizona forest fire that killed nineteen firefighters. O'Reilly gave facts like how the firefighter had contacted the headquarters, saying that they are using their heat shelters, which was the last resort. Then O'Reilly explains what these heat shelters are, a foil-like blanket that can protect the firefighters from the heat for a certain amount of time. Unlike O'Reilly, Matthews did not give facts, only his own opinions. During the Zimmerman trial segment, he only showed Mark Osterman taking the stand to defend his best friend. He then argues with the guest defense attorney, when she was explaining the harm that was inflicted on Zimmerman. It seems that O'Reilly is more genuine and actually cares about the public's interest. At the end of his show, he had a tip of the day, giving feedback to the audience who sends him e-mails. Hardball had a serious attitude, while O'Reilly had a calm attitude. During Hardball's segments, there was a lot of tension with the arguments. Also, his introduction had the serious music like it was life or death. In O'Reilly's introduction, it had funny captions, and in his segments, he had a calm manner. While Chris Matthews attempted to add humor and jokes into his show, it was not understood. He used a blue cow reference, but some people do not know the meaning of it, so it proved to be ineffective to draw the audience in. However, in O'Reilly's segments, the humor and jokes had a positive impact. After a serious discussion about the Zimmerman trial, to lighten the tension, Megyn Kelly and O'Reilly joked around. Megyn Kelly had given him a chocolate bar as her way of buying dinner. Then she explains that she is going on maternity leave until the fall, but O'Reilly jokingly said she won't be back until next year. Both persons continue to banter back and forth, while the camera crew laughed in the background. This was of course not planned, making it actually humorous. There has been significant issues about race in political topics. In Fremont, Nebraska, the townspeople are frustrated with the undocumented immigrants obtaining jobs in the town. Since Fremont is a meat packaging town, these townspeople need the jobs that the immigrants are taking. These illegal immigrants are sending money back to their home country to their families, so Fremont does not profit from this. In an attempt to stop this, he townspeople want to banned the undocumented individuals from renting apartments and houses without proper documentations. According to U. S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp, it is a discrimination to deny housing permits to those who were not in the country legally and it interferes with federal laws. However, the town counters back with a policy that requires businesses to use the federal E-ve rify software to check on the employees. Another topic discussed was how Republicans were trying to win the Latin American voters. The Republicans think that if they talk about the immigration reforms they will gain more voters. However, it was stated that no matter what, Latinos will most likely vote for Democrats even if immigration reforms were discussed by the Republicans. The most important topic discussed was the Zimmerman trial. When this first happened, people across the country defended Trayvon Martin, thinking that he was targeted for being a colored person and looking suspicious by wearing a black hoodie at night. Zimmerman was on the night watch around his neighborhood when these two ran into each other. A fight broke out, leading to Zimmerman pulling and shooting the gun at Martin. Zimmerman pled that he was acting in self-defense. All over the country, people even news station wanted Zimmerman to plead guilty to avoid race riots to occur. Nowadays, news delivery is on the decline of being trustworthy. Reporters, journalists, and those who deliver the news to the public now will spin the news to fit what the audience wants or to fit their own opinion. These people can twist a person's opinion just by intensifying the language and speech. The audience will then notice, â€Å"Hey, they are using powerful words; this makes them sound smart so therefore correct. If the newscasters exude confidence and seem to â€Å"know what they are talking about†, they will have more followers. The public tends not to look for the credibility of the sources or even the sources themselves to see if they are reliable. Instead, the public will definitely look for superficial materials like the appearance of the person delivering the news, how the program looks, or if other p eople like it. If someone were to wear casual clothes, their credibility increases; also if the newscaster was attractive, people tend to listen to them. For example, people tune in to Anderson Cooper on CNN and practically worship the ground he walks, just because of his appearance. If the delivery of the news looks not well done, not all people will want to read or view it. People want professional, not something that someone can program in five minutes. An individual will also tend to get advice from their peers as to what to read or watch. For example, if a person trashed a news station to his or her friend, the friend will not want to get information from that news station. With that being said, nowadays, people judge the book by its cover and not by the information provided. Most news station are affiliated with a political party. For example Fox News, when taking politics will favor the Republican view while MNSBC will favor the Democratic view. With that being said, each will attract a different group of people who agree with that the news station has to say. This makes the shows heavily biased. What I've learned through these research sources, is that there are still racial conflicts throughout the United States. Watching the two news program, Hardball and O'Reilly, each segment had something to do with race and ethnics. Latinos are especially targeted, whether it is to win their votes or to get them out of â€Å"American† jobs. Even though, today there are still some segregation in the communities, people will band together to defend someone of different skin color. What I do not get is that if people will defend Trayvon Martin and not know what actually happened, why can't they support the Latin Americans coming into America in search of an opportunity? I think people are just on the bandwagon. They think that supporting Trayvon Martin will make them look like the good guys, but in reality it just makes them look ignorant and stupid. I also learned that each news program is affiliated with a political party, making them biased and untrustworthy because they only address one side of the story. I know that they are just doing that to gain viewers, but if they just address both sides, there will be more educated people and not opinionated. I think the audience should also be aware of what is happening in our country right now. After watching these two shows, I am more aware of these topics. I never paid attention to the political topics and did not know how the Republicans were trying to woo the Latin American voters. My opinions on the two shows differ from each other. I absolutely could not stand watching Hardball. I think Chris Matthews is a hard-headed jerk. He does not think the other opinions matter but his. He yells at his guests when he is talking to them. I could not wait for it to end, and I nearly celebrated when it was over. On the other hand, I was more interested in O'Reilly just by how he represented the topics. He did it in a formally fashioned way; it felt like a conversation with some debates. I actually paid closer attention because of the humor and learned a few things along in the show. I felt that O'Reilly actually cared about the subjects because he gives both sides to the story. Both Hardball and O'Reilly display their information differently. These news shows are like a person's personality; they express emotions and thoughts. Each individual has a different personality that makes them who they are. A personality can make someone like or dislike an individual.