Name: 愛潑斯坦電郵揭露媒體政治偏見：謹慎選擇資訊來源｜偏見分析 (Epstein emails expose media political bias: Choose sources carefully | Bias Breakdown)
Uploaded: 2026-02-28T11:37:35.000Z
Duration: 11 min 48 s

The latest document dump of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's emails has given us plenty of examples to show you in terms of media bias.

剛出爐的定罪性犯罪者 Jeffrey Epstein 的 email document dump，給了我們很多例子可以來跟大家說明 media bias。

基礎被動語態

Now, while some examples are more subtle, others are pretty easily spotted attempts to sway a narrative to fit one agenda or another.

有些例子比較細微，但有些就很容易被發現，是為了迎合特定議程而 sway a narrative 的企圖。

程度副詞

Political opinions are pretty strong over Epstein and how the government is handling the case.

關於 Epstein 和政府處理此案的方式，political opinions 相當強烈。

As you're about to see, there's a way to frame the facts of this story that's beneficial for both the political left and the political right.

你們馬上就會看到，有種方式可以呈現這個故事的事實，對 political left 和 political right 都有利。

Today we're going to show you just how left and right leaning media outlets do it.

今天我們要來教大家 left and right leaning media 都是怎麼做的。

We'll be bringing in another guest in this week's episode to help us further peel back the media's flaws in coverage.

在這集的 episode，我們會請來另一位嘉賓，協助我們更深入地剖析媒體報導中的瑕疵。

Here's the latest stir up in a House Democrats released three screenshots of email correspondence between Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and writer Michael Wolff.

這是最近一個 stir up，House Democrats 公佈了三張 Jeffrey Epstein、Ghislaine Maxwell 和作家 Michael Wolff 之間的 email correspondence 截圖。

Hours later, the Republican led House Oversight committee released another 20,000 pages of Epstein documents.

幾小時後，Republican led House Oversight committee 公佈了另外 20,000 頁的 Epstein documents。

These are the files that created a flurry of headlines with left and right leaning media reporting the facts in totally contrasting ways.

這些檔案引發了 flurry of headlines，left and right leaning media 以截然不同的方式報導事實。

A left leaning headline from Al Jazeera highlighted this quote from one of the emails released first by House Democrats.

Al Jazeera 一篇偏左的標題，重點報導了眾議院民主黨人首先公佈的其中一封電子郵件中的這段話。

An email that alleged Trump spent hours with victim at Epstein's house.

一封聲稱川普在愛潑斯坦的房子裡花了數小時與受害者在一起的電子郵件。

But a right leaning headline from the New York Post highlighted the White House's response to that released email revealing the redacted victim was Virginia Giuffre, someone who always said Trump never did anything wrong.

但紐約郵報一篇偏右的標題，則聚焦白宮對該封電子郵件的回應，揭露被塗改的受害者是 Virginia Giuffre，一個始終表示川普沒做錯任何事的女人。

It's the same sentence from an email, same story, but framed in two different ways.

這是來自同一封電子郵件的同一句話，同一個故事，但卻用兩種不同的方式呈現。

It fit a broader trend among news outlets and the perspectives highlighted in headlines by each partisan side.

這符合新聞媒體間更廣泛的趨勢，以及每個黨派在標題中強調的觀點。

Take these headlines from left leaning outlets.

看看這些來自偏左媒體的標題。

These are examples of outlets emphasizing quotes from the emails and Epstein tying the sex offender to Trump.

這些是媒體強調電子郵件中引述內容，並將愛潑斯坦與川普連結的例子。

But then take these headlines from right leaning news organizations.

但再看看這些來自偏右新聞機構的標題。

These are examples of outlets emphasizing quotes from the White House and Trump minimizing the emails or ties to Epstein.

這些是媒體強調白宮和川普淡化這些郵件或與愛潑斯坦有關聯的引述。

We're bringing media watchdog group All Sides back into our conversation this week to further talk about this media divide and story framing of Epstein.

這週我們要請來媒體監督團體 All Sides 回到我們的討論中，進一步談論這個媒體鴻溝和愛潑斯坦的故事呈現方式。

We sent over several stories and together with All Sides Editor in Chief Henry A.

我們提供了一些報導，並與 All Sides 的總編輯 Henry A.

Brechter, we broke down different types of biases in the media's reporting, starting with how some outlets are slanting and spinning the story.

Brechter 一起剖析了媒體報導中不同類型的偏見，首先從有些媒體如何傾斜和扭曲報導開始談起。

There's a ton of different types of bias at play here.

這裡有好多不同類型的偏見在作用。

Narrators are being slanted to favor one side or the other.

敘事方式被傾斜，以偏袒其中一方。

That's what you see when a particular piece of content is just focused on quotes from Trump or just focused on quotes from the emails from Epstein and then interpretations of those emails from people who might be on the left, Democrats or otherwise.

當特定內容只聚焦於川普的引述，或只聚焦於愛潑斯坦的郵件引述，以及那些可能屬於左派、民主黨或其他人的解讀時，你就會看到這種情況。

So that definitely examples of both slant and spin.

所以這絕對是傾斜和扭曲的例子。

The sort of manipulation and framing of a narrative in such a way that it puts down the other side of the argument.

透過某種方式操縱和建構一個敘事，來貶低論點的另一方。

It wasn't just headlines that would read in contrast of one another.

But take coverage from MSNBC on the left and the Daily Wire on the right.

但看看 MSNBC 和 Daily Wire 的報導。

The headlines read similarly to each other, highlighting another portion of an Epstein email that alleged Trump knew about the girls.

標題彼此相似，都強調了愛潑斯坦郵件中另一段指控川普知情的內容。

But the story is told very differently within the articles.

但文章內的故事講述方式卻大不相同。

MSNBC started the story with multiple Epstein email quotes, then summed up the email correspondence as evidence that undercut the President's attempts to distance himself from Epstein.

MSNBC 以多段愛潑斯坦的郵件引述開頭，然後總結這些郵件往來，作為削弱總統與愛潑斯坦劃清界線企圖的證據。

The White House's response is in the last paragraph, whereas take the Daily Wire's report and the White House's response is in the first paragraph calling it a fake narrative and smear.

白宮的回應在最後一段，而 Daily Wire 的報導則將白宮的回應放在第一段，稱這是虛假的敘事和抹黑。

Their last paragraph starts with Trump not being accused of any wrongdoing.

他們的最後一段以川普並未被指控任何不當行為開頭。

So it was the same story, nearly identical headlines.

所以這是同一個故事，標題幾乎一模一樣。

But these outlets favored one political perspective over the other, evident in how they prioritize certain quotes and voices, which is another form of media bias by viewpoint placement.

但這些媒體偏袒其中一個政治觀點，這在它們如何優先處理某些引述和聲音上顯而易見，這也是另一種形式的 media bias by viewpoint placement。

It's one thing to just not cover a point of view at all.

完全不報導某個觀點，這是一回事。

這就是我們所說的 bias by omission。

If that's just straight up left out of the content altogether.

Bias by viewpoint placement is a little bit harder to detect sometimes because that might occur when an article or a podcast or any piece of content.

觀點置入偏見有時候比較難察覺，因為這可能發生在文章或Podcast，或任何內容裡。

It does include the different perspectives but it organizes or addresses them in an imbalanced way.

它確實包含不同的觀點，但卻以不平衡的方式呈現或處理它們。

It's not just perspectives or interpretation of the facts that read differently among left and right news outlets, but

不只是觀點或事實的詮釋在左右派媒體之間有所不同，

There is a discharge petition in the House that just received enough votes to force House Speaker Mike Johnson to call for the vote on the Epstein files Release.

眾議院有一項「放行請願」，已經獲得足夠的連署，迫使眾議院議長麥克·強生（Mike Johnson）就愛潑斯坦文件（Epstein files）的釋出進行投票。

Out of 217 signatures, only these four Republicans put their name on that petition to call for a vote.

在 217 個簽署者中，只有這四位共和黨人將名字簽在請願書上，要求進行投票。

There were reports circulating that President Trump spoke with Boebert and Nancy Mace regarding their signatures on the petition.

有報導傳出，川普總統與波伯特（Boebert）和南西·梅斯（Nancy Mace）談論了她們在請願書上的簽名。

It was framed by left leaning Axios as Trump pressuring Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace.

這被左派媒體 Axios 描繪成川普在施壓勞倫·波伯特（Lauren Boebert）和南西·梅斯（Nancy Mace）。

But right leaning Washington examiner reported there was no pressure put on the congresswoman who spoke with Trump about the Epstein files.

但右派媒體華盛頓觀察家報（Washington Examiner）報導，這位與川普談論愛潑斯坦文件的國會女議員並未受到任何壓力。

When the headlines are are in such direct opposition from different sides of the media on a story like this, it's.

當像這樣的報導，左右派媒體的標題出現如此直接的對立時，這就說明瞭。

It shows that outlets are unfortunately a lot of news Outlets and journalists are more focused on appeasing and appealing to their base rather than appealing to a diverse audience.

這顯示出許多新聞媒體和記者，很不幸地，更專注於迎合和討好他們的基本盤，而不是吸引多元的觀眾。

Two more quick examples for you of how media framing matters then, the political analysis behind why these partisan patterns in Epstein coverage persist.

再提供兩個關於媒體框架如何影響報導，以及為何愛潑斯坦報導中這些黨派模式持續存在的政治分析的例子。

First, Politico on the left, a headline that reads latest Epstein files knock White House on its heels.

首先，左派的 Politico，標題寫著「最新愛潑斯坦文件讓白宮措手不及」。

Right away, that headline is framing the White House as being on the defense, as being unstable and unsteady.

這個標題立刻將白宮描繪成處於守勢，不穩定且站不穩腳跟。

The Politico writer describes the emails as the latest blow to a White House already reeling.

Politico 的作者形容這些電子郵件是「最新一擊」，讓一個已經搖搖欲墜的白宮雪上加霜。

Subjective qualifying adjectives like that are something that we see used a lot.

像這樣的形容詞，我們經常看到被用來主觀地定性。

And Politico Wright, the email revelation followed a brutal week for President Donald Trump.

而 Politico 寫道，這封電子郵件的揭露，緊隨在川普總統艱難的一週之後。

Even though six paragraphs down they quote White House officials who pushed back against their own characterization.

儘管在六段之後，他們引用了白宮官員的回應，反駁了他們自己的說法。

Politico describes Trump's wheat as brutal.

Politico 形容川普的「艱難」是殘酷的。

To reach for such a subjective qualification like that is a just clear cut example of bias, something that we point out a lot.

這樣主觀的定性，就是一個很明顯的偏見，這也是我們常指出的。

Then there's this article from Newsmax on the right, Trump blast Dems Epstein email deflections.

接著是右派 Newsmax 的這篇文章，標題是「川普痛批民主黨人對 Epstein 電子郵件的推託之詞」。

It leads with that charged adjective blast.

文章一開始就用了「痛批」這個帶有情緒的形容詞。

And it also uses a quote from Trump calling them deflections.

而且也引用了川普的話，稱這些是推託之詞。

And in, in the context of that headline, it does read like Newsmax is endorsing his point of view.

在這個標題的脈絡下，確實會讓人覺得 Newsmax 在支持他的觀點。

Newsmax describes Trump as coming out swinging in response to the Epstein emails.

Newsmax 形容川普在回應 Epstein 電子郵件時，是「出擊反擊」。

And that sort of frames him as, you know, on the attack and sort of fighting back against unjust criticism.

這就將他塑造成一種，你知道的，正在反擊、對抗不公正批評的樣子。

And throughout the article, only Trump and the White House are quoted at all sides.

整篇文章中，只有川普和白宮被引用了，其他所有方面都沒有。

Our position is you can't claim to understand an issue if you can't articulate the side of the issue that you disagree with.

我們的立場是，如果你無法闡述你不同意的觀點，你就不能聲稱自己理解這個議題。

If a perspective is omitted entirely from a story, that's an egregious example of bias.

如果一則報導完全省略了某種觀點，那就是一個嚴重的偏見例子。

So why do we see this sort of, quite frankly, obvious divide in how the media is covering this story?

那麼，為什麼我們會看到媒體在報導這個故事時，出現這種明顯的分歧呢？

There's a lot of different angles to take, but

有很多不同的角度可以切入，但是

there are partisan patterns in what voices to amplify and what information to showcase.

在要放大哪些聲音、要展示哪些資訊方面，確實存在黨派模式。

Henry has this explanation and analysis to offer as to why left and right media are choosing to cover abstain the way that they are.

Henry 對於 left and right leaning media 為何選擇這樣報導，提出了他的解釋和分析。

Outlets on the left know that their audience is generally going to be more likely to want to criticize Trump or find evidence that Trump did something wrong with this story.

左翼媒體知道他們的觀眾通常會比較傾向批評 Trump，或者尋找 Trump 在這個故事中有錯的證據。

So it's natural that they would focus on the critics of Trump.

所以他們自然會聚焦在 Trump 的批評者身上。

They know their audiences looking for information that absolves Trump so they can lead with his defenses or evidence that goes against what Democrats are presenting.

他們知道他們的觀眾在尋找能為 Trump 辯護的資訊，所以他們可以優先報導他的辯護，或是與 House Democrats 所提出的論點相反的證據。

And that's what that's when you start dealing with, like I said earlier, these different truths and real extreme polarization on an issue where seemingly there's like no common solution to be to be had.

這就是我們開始處理，就像我之前說的，這些不同的真相，以及在一個看似沒有共同解決方案的問題上，極端的兩極分化。

The media is aware of the current landscape, and

left and right media often try to criticize the opposing side's coverage.

左翼和右翼媒體經常試圖批評對方的報導。

NPR criticized right wing media's coverage, describing it as shrugging off the story.

NPR 批評右翼媒體的報導，形容他們對這個故事不屑一顧。

Meanwhile, the Daily Wire was critical of legacy outlets, pointing to Bill O'Reilly's claim that mainstream media omitted testimony from Epstein attorney Alan Dershowitz that exonerates President Trump.

同時，《每日 वायर》則批評傳統媒體，引用 Bill O'Reilly 的說法，指責主流媒體省略了 Epstein 的律師 Alan Dershowitz 證明川普總統清白的證詞。

Henry says this sort of storytelling in the form of finger pointing says a lot about the current climate.

Henry 說，這種互相指責的敘事方式，充分反映了目前的氣候。

It's unfortunately illustrative of just how combative all of politics is.

這不幸地說明瞭整個政治有多麼好鬥。

And now it's sort of seeped its way into the media circulation and into how people read about issues and learn about issues.

現在，這種情況已經滲透到媒體傳播，以及人們如何閱讀和了解議題。

And that's more of that vicious cycle of constant negativity focused on enemies, covering that, encouraging readers to engage with that.

這就是那種不斷聚焦於敵人、充滿負面情緒的惡性循環，鼓勵讀者參與其中。

And then readers become more and more polarized and less, less open to discussions with people that they disagree with, less open to, you know, the core functions of a healthy democracy and a healthy society.

然後讀者變得越來越兩極化，越來越不願意與意見不同的人討論，也越來越不願意接受健康民主和健康社會的核心功能。

Thank you so much for watching this week's episode all the way to the end here.

非常感謝大家收看本週的 episode 到最後。

This is a big story with a lot of public interest and there should be plenty of updates as the week progresses.

這是一個引起廣泛關注的大新聞，隨著本週的進展，應該會有許多後續報導。

The House voted on the Epstein files and President Trump is now calling on his party to support the release of all files and the DOJ will likely have to respond.

House 投票通過了 Epstein 文件，而川普總統現在呼籲他的黨派支持釋放所有文件，司法部很可能會有所回應。

Trump is also calling for several Epstein related investigations, so it's likely this story will stay in the news cycle for weeks and maybe even months.

川普也呼籲對幾起與 Epstein 有關的調查，所以這個新聞很可能會在新聞循環中持續數週甚至數月。

So as you continue to follow coverage on this subject, hopefully you'll keep some of the talking points from today in mind to spot potential media bias and approach the story with a critical eye.

所以，當你繼續關注這個主題的報導時，希望你會記住今天的一些重點，以便辨識潛在的 media bias，並帶著批判的眼光來閱讀這則新聞。

A big thank you to Henry for taking the time to talk with us about this complex story and for helping identify the media narratives and spin.

非常感謝 Henry 花時間與我們討論這個複雜的故事，並協助我們辨識 media narratives 和 spin。

Now, if you missed last week's episode, be sure to find our podcast on any of your favorite podcast platforms.

如果你錯過了上週的 episode，請務必在任何你喜歡的 podcast 平臺上找到我們的 podcast。

There you can catch our story on Nigeria and how the media is cherry picking data on Christian deaths.

在那裡，你可以收聽到我們關於奈及利亞以及媒體如何選擇性報導基督徒死亡人數的故事。

We had Julie from all sides help us break down the coverage and explain the left and right media narratives in that story.

我們請到了 All Sides 的 Julie 來協助我們剖析報導，並解釋該故事中的 left and right media narratives。