New Story Everyday

Stories come in all sorts of headlines, particularly Jodi Arais’ case, some say she is innocent while other claim she is a “whore” and a “murderess with memory loss”. The killing happened so long ago it’s hard to even grasp the idea that in 2008 this woman was accused of stabbing, shooting, and slicing her fiancé or boyfriend all in one swift moment. Now, just four years and ten months later her story has resurfaced in a new light. Not only is she perceived as a killer, but now she is a killer with memory loss, or so they say. Well, we do believe in “innocence till proven guilty”. Many sources are having a hard time keeping up with Arias’ countless tales. With new updates of her trail, those who believe in her innocence are very few and adamant about it to. Although for those who want her sent away or even killed it is becoming a chore to keep up with the details of her case, and her unstable stories.  

Most main news sources are simply, as Harris would say, “forwarding” what they know. Sure, here and there they are inclined to discretely throw in their own two cents, but mostly it is simply sending out information to the mass so they are up to date. On the other hand blogs and personal sites tend to lean toward “countering” or even “taking an approach”.  Personally, the main news sources are nice to understand what is really going on. Although, I must admit the personal blogs and sites that talk about the case are quite entertaining; the voices would echo in a stadium.

In most news outlets a sense of personal bias is seen in the wording used to describe a quote or the motions that the prosecutor, Juan Martinez, and defendant, Jodi Arias, act out. While news sources like The Washington Post and Fox News Latino, attempt to maintain the integrity of the story by simply stating the facts, HLN and AZ Central add a bit more to the story with blunt characterizing words.  The first two news stories use latent words casually thrown in throughout the article like: “barked, moaned, cried, dryly, angered, methodically, jealous rage, hammering” to subtly evoke emotions from their readers about the case. Whereas HLN and AZ Central have no issue on takeing an approach by outwardly associating Arias with words like: “flustered, floundered, damage control, cracked, panics, zombie-like, ‘lies & cries’, hysterical, break down, raunchy sex, ashamed, frightened, duplicity,” to paint a picture of who Arias is, whether it is true or not. 

The news sources that use subtle emotion triggering words to explain to the reader what is going are often times known for the conservative role they take in providing news for the public. And the sources that weren’t afraid to take a blunt stance are known for the liberal and sometimes neutral stance they take. One news sources that was able to provide information without characterizing Arias or subtly evoking emotion about the case was ABC News. Throughout the article ABC keeps a formal and factual tone with no emotion evoking phrases or words.

As for blogs, I was quite surprised by the two extreme ends people took on how they felt about the case, as well as a neutral stance. While some provided analysis of the case word for word, others brought factual information to their followers, and some even rebutted the contents of why the trial is wrong.  Harris would say all these blogs are “taking an approach” to the case and full heartedly defending it, or simply “forwarding” what they know.

Blogs like “Call for Justice: Sometimes There Are Monsters Walking Among Us” on WordPress, was probably the most detailed and entertaining to read as well as on the extreme end of opinions. The blogger had an extreme disliking to Arias and often times even pointed out some of the minute things the prosecution didn’t mention. With italicized commentary the author allows his or her followers to be persuaded that Arias did kill Anderson, and she should be given the death penalty. Then there was David Lohr who writes for the Huffington Post. Lohr takes a more neutral stance and blogs daily live updates of the case. For the most part he is able to blog without any bias about the trail. Lastly there is the Jodi Arias innocence obsessed blog, in the form of a website that takes an extreme end on the case. This blog as well this is committed to daily updates of the trail and support of Arias. The blog not only justifies the belief of why Arias is innocent, but they also attack the prosecutor and why he is at fault.

As fascinating as it is to see all the different ways Arais’ trail is being presented in articles and blog spheres after four years, I think the evolving nature of how her case was present on CBS News 48-House is much more representative of how news in the digital realm circulates. 48 Hours a segment from CBS News managed to interview Arias and understand her side of what was happening. When the accusation were first made 48 Hours conducted an interview on Jodi Arias. This wasn’t presented as an article, but instead a 43-minute video. How they portrayed her four years ago is nothing like what they portray her as in the update video. The update does not characterize Arias as the innocent accused killer anymore, but instead makes viewers question ‘why the hell she has so many versions to her story’. 

The use of live footage and interviews creates a much deeper connection and reaction to what the viewer sees.  Arias seen in a live time lapse of four years on how she tells her story and how she acts in court, will create a much more non hesitant judgment from viewers rather than simply reading an article. Not to mention the commentator also takes on a much harsher tone of voice when narrating the update then in the first interview, which also causes viewers to unconsciously pick up on that.

Harris would note that the CBS News segment is taking three different aspects of digitally rewriting into motion at once in the update of Arias’ trail. First it can be said that CBS News is “taking an approach” to how they first presented the Arias case. Then they are “countering” what was first assumed to be the accurate story with the updated versions of the story. This also goes along with the fact that Arias herself is also continuously changed her mind on what happened. And lastly they are “forwarding” the information that they believe is relevant to what is happening now in the case. 

I was quick to notice when I picked this story to follow that there really wasn’t much prior articles written about the case when the murder first happened. Often times there are headline stories when such a brutal murder happens, but not in this case. The closest thing to a prior story is the CBS coverage. The first coverage noted is mostly blogs, which have from the beginning taken a stand on what they believe.

The only accurate update you can get from a story like this is to actually watch the trail its self, which most blogs and news websites provide. I personally haven’t gone back and watched all the trials or done my homework on that case, but as far as the news and blogs persuade me, I must admit I agree with a good portion of the news that thinks she is guilty. But what do I know; I’m simply gathering what is given to me. Maybe once the trail is over it will be easier to get a full understanding of what happened from the day the murder was committed on February 25, 2008 in Mesa, Arizona to when the jury gives a final verdict.

Like many news stories Arias’ story has managed to circulate from local news to national. News tends to come to us wherever we go and in all forms too. Whether it be a creepy obsession site, a short and simply blurb, or a collaborated video, we find out. Over time as new information builds the reports evolve as well. Sometimes the news takes a complete 180 and portrays the story in a completely different light then what it was at first, or nothing changes at all. Each news source will have some sort of underlying bias that is presented in subtle or not so subtly ways. Often times most sources cater to their audience and the beliefs they hold, so if some site are openly bias in the information they provide, it might have to do who they are writing for.