For my media bias analysis, I decided to choose Forbes. During my selection process, I wanted to choose a source that would be both well-known/familiar to me and also something I had cited in the past. I’ve used Forbes multiple times but always questioned its reliability/credibility as well as its political bias. In my research, I discovered that Forbes has a reliability rating of 43.74 (strong and in the green zone) and tends to have pretty balanced media bias overall with a rating of -3.04 (leaning slightly left). I would say that this data does not really surprise me as any time I’ve used an article from Forbes in the past, I’ve never noticed any obvious political bias, and seeing as the audience size of the source is approximately 57 million, it’s clear that this is a very credible/reliable source to cite. I think that in the future I’ll definitely feel secure/reliable about using Forbes, and I’m glad that the research I did was able to show positive results.

I chose to investigate The Wall Street Journal because the WSJ is more of a business-based newspaper which I am interested in. According to the media bias chart, the Wall Street Journal has a bias score of 4.89. This means that the Wall Street Journal is more right leaning than left leaning. I was not surprised by this number because the reports from the Wall Street Journal always seem to be more in favor for republicans than democrats. The Wall Street Journal has a score of 46.06 for reliability. This score means that the Wall Street Journal is mainly a mix of fact reporting as well as an analysis of the facts. This score seems very appropriate because the Wall Street Journal does not simply report the facts, it also provides a commentary on the facts. Even though the Wall Street Journal is more right leaning, I still do think it is a pretty good source, you just have to keep in that bias may play a role in what you are reading.

I chose to investigate Today because my family watched the Today show almost every morning when I was growing up. Therefore, I was curious to learn more about the reliability of the source. According to the media bias chart, NBC: Today has a bias score of -1.22, which means that it is slightly left-leaning. This does not surprise me because the Today show did tend to have commentary that was skewed to the left. Today received a score of 42.00 for reliability, which means that it has a mix of fact reporting and analysis. This also doesn’t surprise me. While the main purpose of Today seems to be fact reporting, there is clearly some commentary and opinions on the different topics. Overall, I still think that Today is a decent source for surface-level, day-to-day news. However, I think that it’s also important to recognize that it is slightly left-leaning, and commentary and analysis are included in reports.

NPR was the news source that I choose because it is the news source that I listen to the most and I wanted to see where they would fall on the chart. The media bias site showed that NPR was mostly analysis or a mix of opinion with reporting and analysis, skewing slightly left. They had a reliability of 46.23 and a bias of -4.73.  Their content is mostly neutral however I thought they would have skewed left rather than just slightly left because typically their content follows a more “liberal agenda.” From previous personal experience their reliability at covering a wide range of topics is not surprising.  They have many ways to access their news via on TV, podcasts, or online and also have a transparency page that allows readers to figure out NPR’s sources. If the sources are anonymous there is a detailed relationship of the source to the article.

For this blog post, the website I decided to look at was Vox. First, I went to the “About Us” section on the Vox website. The first big statement they had was “Vox explains the news”. I thought this was interesting because based on who you ask, the news can be interpreted in different ways. The about us section said little about their own personal bias, but it did lay out the topics they cover. After this, I went to the “How we make Vox” section. One of the sections talked about how Vox tries to use visual graphs and charts to capture the reader better. Ezra Klein, the founder of the website said that “journalism focused on readers’ needs and interests won’t necessarily cater to the tastes of other media pros”. This is interesting because it shows that Vox is willing to be unique in how they go about doing journalism. When I clicked on the “politics and policy” section, there was also nothing about media bias. I found this interesting because normally I think of Vox as a more left-wing news cite.

Personally, I believe that the cut down on gasoline is necessary for the long term. I do not say that we have to do it immediately, reduce gas consumption in a large scale or change to use other renewable alternatives right away. There is no way a transition to a renewable can occur quickly and easily like the way we state we have to cut down on gasoline. Definitely, everything needs time and effort but first it is important for us to have a mindset that we must lessen the gas consumption sooner or later. Oil is now the most consumed energy and the amount of greenhouse created by it is tremendous and we cannot just exploit it relentlessly till it becomes exhausted. Gasoline is a non-renewable resource and it is still affordable for us now as it is still available for us. Once gas becomes scarcer and harder to exploit, its price will not be affordable anymore as we have to put more effort to get it. We cannot wait till that moment, when its impact on environment is damaging enough, to change our behavior. Remember that our core eventual purpose is the reduction of carbon. We have to keep the mindset of limiting and saving gas in specific and energy consumption in general as much as we possible. Any can afford more environmental-friendly approach to life should do it. Any cannot can limit the amount they use. If every individual and cooperation think and do like this, the amount of gas left will become exhausted slower, hopefully, giving us enough time to shift to renewables with less difficulty.

Switching to electric cars or not driving is simply not a possible conversion that a population could make in only ten years. America lacks the infrastructure to support total electric vehicle use. The way America is designed doesn’t support walking and biking either, with spread out cities and towns that lack useful bike paths or sidewalks. America’s green infrastructure pales in comparison to the European cities, where everything is close together and walking/biking is made convenient and widely used by citizens. When I first took an environmental science class, I was onboard with stopping the use of cars. However, when I actually became a driver I realized how beneficial cars are to our daily life, and they can’t be phased out. With many people not being able to afford an electric car so soon and who live in towns that lack green infrastructure, they need gas powered cars to survive. Synthetic fuel that is made from organic materials and can be pumped into an internal combustion engine like gasoline is the short-term answer because it greatly reduces carbon emissions and is sustainable for everyone in the U.S.

Car is an important aspect for our society, it allow us to advance rapidly in the way it did. It provide the transportation, allowing people to live in suburban area, travel, and go shopping or other place that they desire. I don’t want to give up this car privilege and I don’t think people need to do so to cut down the use of fossil fuel. There are alternate sources of energy, many of which don’t produce green house gas. At the same time, the efficiency of a car is important because the amount we drive doesn’t change. The only thing that change is the amount we use. New cars that are more efficiency, are coming out, some of them are slowly becoming more affordable. Yes there are people who can’t afford an alternate fuel car or more efficient car but there are plans and other resources that allow them to buy or trade their car for one. Although, I believe that the government need to do more to help with this issues. The cost of investing in a more efficient car and alternate fuel is a good investment for the future and the bank account of car holder. I have no doubt that in the next few years, the gas price will go up. People who can’t accord to change their car now will have to do it eventually. There is no pro in staying neutral other than resisting a change that benefit everyone.

Some may argue that cutting down the usage of cars and gasoline shouldn’t be a key concern to focus on at the moment. For those who agree with this position, it has been highlighted that the usage of gasoline helps benefit the economy and that switching to electric vehicles as an immediate substitute for cars may be challenging for others to immediately purchase as a result of its expense. While this may be true, by continuing to use cars and gasoline, in the long run, the consequences these two factors produce may outweigh the immediate pros for numerous people. Hence, when it comes to the car and gasoline issue, I feel like their usage should be cut in order to help reduce – and if possible prevent  – future catastrophes. To start off, the major reason I chose the position of the need to cut the usage of cars and gasoline is due to car emissions burning fossil fuels – like gas – which has become a significant cause of climate change. The burning of fossil fuels is one of the main contributors of carbon dioxide as it has been found in the exhaust of cars. Yet, though carbon dioxide already exists in the atmosphere, more carbon dioxide has been released into the atmosphere mainly because of the rise of people driving cars. This has led to a slowing process of natural carbon sinks being able to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere due to its fast build-up; has further led to carbon trapping in more heat in the atmosphere. Thus, the increased usage of cars has become a critical factor that has helped lead to climate change. From sea-level rise to odd weather patterns to increased forest fires – climate change affects everyone. Not only are there environmental consequences that come with climate change but there are also socioeconomic challenges that arise like food scarcity due to extreme droughts. Using this as an example, situations like these have in some cases led to conflicts within and between communities. Last, but not least the burning of emissions from cars has also been linked to being a catalyst for many health problems that people have, especially in major cities. These health problems range from worsening conditions of cancer to a rise in asthma and bronchitis cases which have gone downhill for those who already suffer from these conditions. Although it may be easier to focus on the immediate benefits of continuing the usage of cars and gasoline, the long-term impacts and consequences must be taken into account. This doesn’t mean that cars and gasoline would be removed permanently. Instead more action would be focused on finding more sustainable energy sources and discovery of new and improved car models which may better benefit humanity, our environment, and future generations to come.