SZA is leading the field with nine nods in various categories including Album of the Year.
The 2024 Grammy Awards are just around the corner.
Victoria Monet, Boygenius, Janelle Monae, Lana Del Rey and Miley Cyrus are also notable contenders.
The 2024 Grammy Awards are just around the corner, and there's a lot of excitement in the air. The Recording Academy has created a digital version of their program book for those who can't attend the televised ceremony in person. From nominees to Special Merit Awards and Trustees Awards, this guide is your one-stop shop for all things Grammy related.
The 2024 Grammys will be held on February 4th at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles, California. The ceremony will air live from 8:00 to 11:30 PM ET/5:00-8:30 PM PT on CBS and Paramount+.
As for the nominees, SZA is leading the field with nine nods in various categories including Album of the Year. Other notable contenders include Victoria Monet, Boygenius, Janelle Monae, Lana Del Rey and Miley Cyrus. The Record of the Year category features a mix of newcomers like Olivia Rodrigo's
The Recording Academy has created a digital version of the 2024 GRAMMYs Program Book for those who cannot attend the televised ceremony in person.
SZA's Grammy-contending album this year might also be the emergency signal being sent out by anyone whose job it is to prognosticate the Grammys this year.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The article has multiple conflicts of interest. The Recording Academy is the organization that hosts the GRAMMY Awards and produces their program book. They also have a financial stake in Crypto.com Arena where the event will take place.
Miley Cyrus and More Set for Possible Historic Night
Accuracy
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Variety's predictions are not based on personal preferences for any individual contender. However, this statement contradicts the fact that the article provides a list of nominees and their respective categories with no explanation as to why they were chosen.
The author claims that Variety's predictions are not based on personal preferences but then proceeds to list the nominees in each category.
The article states that a vaunted Adele vs Beyonce battle can be decided with a neither of the above and a Jon Batiste can win the top prize after being forecast by no one in the world. This is an example of sensationalism as it exaggerates the importance of these artists' performances.
The article lists Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Miley Cyrus and more set for possible historic night without providing any reasoning behind these choices.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Variety's predictions are official and accurate. This is not true as the predictions are based on personal preferences of the editor and can change over time. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing how a Jon Batiste win for top prize after being forecast by no one in the world would feel like chaos theory in action.
The prediction pages reflect the current standings in the race and do not reflect personal preferences for any individual contender. As other formal (and informal) polls suggest, competitions are fluid and subject to change based on buzz and events.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to white supremacists celebrating a reference to racist conspiracy theories.
>GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has been dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon
verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating.
In theory that should mean less vote-splitting and solid meaningful victories. In practice we'll just have to wait and see.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that the Grammy Awards are not great and then proceeds to make predictions about who will win and who should win. This statement contradicts itself as it implies that the awards are not important or credible, yet they still hold significance for artists in the music industry. Secondly, there is a lack of transparency when discussing how many votes were cast for each category. The article mentions that voting was done by members of the Recording Academy and only eight contenders were chosen per category instead of ten as before. However, it does not provide any information on how these decisions were made or who had input into them. Lastly, there is a lack of diversity in the nominations for Album of the Year with all five artists being white women.
There is a lack of transparency when discussing how many votes were cast for each category. The article mentions that voting was done by members of the Recording Academy and only eight contenders were chosen per category instead of ten as before. However, it does not provide any information on how these decisions were made or who had input into them.
There is a lack of diversity in the nominations for Album of the Year with all five artists being white women.
The article uses sensationalism by stating that the Grammy Awards are not great and then proceeds to make predictions about who will win and who should win. This statement contradicts itself as it implies that the awards are not important or credible, yet they still hold significance for artists in the music industry.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Recording Academy's members had to choose between only eight contenders apiece in each category, which should mean less vote-splitting and solid, meaningful victories. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or data provided in the article.
The author uses an appeal to authority when stating that the Recording Academy's members had to choose between only eight contenders apiece in each category.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to white supremacists celebrating a reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.
> GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has been dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon
verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the Grammy Awards of 2024 and provides predictions for who will win and who should win. The authors have a financial interest in the music industry as they work for Pitchfork Media, which is owned by Condenast. They also have personal relationships with some of the artists mentioned in the article such as SZA, Janelle Monáe, Boygenius and Miley Cyrus.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Album of the Year as they are affiliated with SZA and Boygenius who have been nominated for this category.
.jpg)
