I watched a video on YouTube, hosted by FOX news, interviewing Marcus Luttrell on ISIS’ recent advancement in Iraqi territory and enclosing on a military base, just 5 miles away. The interview focused on gaining Luttreell’s opinion on ISIS’ foothold in Iraq and its now proximity to a military base filled with 300 marines. Luttrell says that these marines could quite possibly taker over Iraq and relinquish ISIS as well, if they were let loose.
Luttrell was a war time hero and his opinion is respected, being an infamous war hero in the elite Seal Team 6 of the Navy Seals. I think both Fox News and Luttrell have political bias. Fox news as being notoriously Conservative is definitely an example of political bias. I think that their questions were used to play into a certain message that the president is not doing anything to put down the radical terrorist group ISIS.
After using a traditional news source (dailymail) I read an article about ISIS’ reign of terror including their recent public execution of three Syrian prisoners. ISIS kicked these men to death then dragged their bodies through the streets as they were trolled along by motor scooters. I think that traditional news sources tell you a lot of what happened but through a funnel of information that is usually second hand. I think there are definitely news sources that are more authoritative than others. Dailymail for example does not seem to be at the forefront of A-list news around the world. On the other hand groups like the New York Times, ABC, NBC and others seem to be on the frontlines and at the heart of breaking news. I think that traditional news sources are better for academic research because they give you eyewitness details and they tell a story. This is better than common social media outlets like Twitter and YouTube because they give the reader more material to work with.