This paper is designed to analyze credibility of claims made by television commercials, and News Clips on the Larry King show. This report explains who paid for each segment, which the interested parties were, and to determine the credibility, slant, and the bias of the segment. The report also discusses any skepticality caused by each segment.
Who paid for each example to be created?
I believe that Rudy Giuliani and the network that the Larry King show airs on paid for the news clip. I believe this because it seemed to me that it was a promotion of Rudy Giuliani for president, it showed that Mr. Giuliani cared a lot about the Terrorist Attacks of 2001, and that he might run for president in 2008.
Can you detect a slant—that is, a secondary opinion conveyed by the examples’ creators?
I most definitely detect a slant (secondary opinion) by Larry King and Rudy Giuliani. I think that the main purpose of the news clip is to convey that Mr. Giuliani was deeply affected by “9/11” and that he would be a great nominee for president because he had real emotions tied to the event.
What does each example reflect about society at large? Is it credible? Explain your answers.
I am not sure that the news clip reflected anything about society at large. Perhaps it was trying to convey that Americans as a whole are deeply affected by the Terrorist Attacks. I think that it is credible, because so many people were affected by that tragedy.
Are you skeptical of the sources’ credibility? Why or why not?
I am a bit skeptical of the sources’ credibility because I understand that Larry King is an extreme Republican Conservatist, and therefore he probably tends to promote his ideals more than keeping a strictly informative approach to his show.
Do you detect any bias? Why or why not?
I do detect a bias, because I noticed that Larry King and Mr. Giuliani were joking about how they are from the same town and I also...